








^m: /% 







0^ o-'JL,'''', o, ^-J 















■^n '^^ "■ ail® ° -i' 










.^ ^v'kC^Va^„ ""^^ ^^-^^ .> ■ 



• ^^..^v^ .^>.^rAr« "V 



HISTORY 



OF THE 



ENGLISH LANGUAGE 



BY 

T. R. LOUNSBURY 

Professor of English in Yale University 



REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION 



NEW YORK 
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
1907 



,1^ 



^^1 



IUBf^ARYof CONGRESS 
Two Coolcs Received 
SEF 21 »90f 
CooynfM Entry 

CLASS /4 XXC., No. 

COPY B. 




Copyright, 1879, 1894,1007 
By henry holt & CO. 



PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION. 



A REVISED edition of this work has long been desir- 
able on many accounts ; it has now become indispen- 
sable for reasons purely typographical. The plates 
from which the previous impressions have been 
printed are now thoroughly worn out. The present 
seemed, therefore, a fitting time to subject the work 
to a complete revision in the light of changes which 
experience has shown to be advisable, and of modi- 
fications and alterations of statement which the 
advance of knowledge has rendered necessary. 

This revision has been carried out on so extensive 
a scale, and so numerous have been the alterations, 
that, while the old lines have been followed, the work, 
as a whole, has almost a right to be termed new. 
There are comparatively few paragraphs which have 
not been entirely or partially rewritten. Facts have 
been restated and passages have been rearranged. 
Matter found in the previous editions has been dis- 
carded, and new matter, which seemed more perti- 
nent, has been substituted in its place. Yet, in spite 
iii 



iv Preface to the Revised Edition, 

of the large number of omissions, so much has been 
added that the present edition contains above one 
hundred and fifty pages more than those that have 
preceded it. There are many other changes which, it 
is hoped, will conduce to an easier and fuller compre- 
hension of the subject. Certain points which, as expe- 
rience has proved, were liable to be misapprehended 
or overlooked by the reader or student, have been 
brought out more clearly and prominently. A system 
of cross-references between the two parts and between 
the different sections of the second part has been 
carried through on a somewhat extended scale. A 
large number of illustrative references and quotations 
have been added. In the limited field, in fact, which 
the work sets out to cover, no pains have been spared 
to make it as complete as possible. 

The greatest difference, in any single case, between 
this and the previous editions is in the treatment of 
the strong verbs in the second part. Still the more 
important of the changes introduced were introduced 
on the score of expediency. In this country Sievers's 
Angelsdchsische Grammatik, or the Sievers-Cook '^ Old 
EngUsh Grammar," is the grammar of our earliest 
speech which is now in widest use. It was therefore 
deemed better to conform the classification of the 
strong verbs to that employed in those works, and to 
bring it in accord with them, a change was made in 
the number and arrangement previously adopted. 
In addition, the details belonging to the different 
classes of strong verbs have been largely brought 



Preface to the Revised Edition, v 

together in this edition under each class, and not, as 
before, distributed under different titles. 

As regards the subject of nomenclature, I have seen 
no reason to alter essentially that which was employed 
in the previous editions. On one point in particular, 
action has not been taken unadvisedly. I have exam- 
ined with care everything accessible on the subject, 
and, I think, nearly everything that has been published, 
and the more I have read, the less I have been im- 
pressed with the force of the arguments against the 
use of the term "Anglo-Saxon." I have therefore re- 
tained it in this work, as furnishing what is all-impor- 
tant in nomenclature, a term which, once understood, 
can never be misunderstood. It is very noticeable 
that those who are most violently opposed to its use, 
not unfrequently resort to it when they wish to define 
with absolute precision what they mean when they 
apply the term '^ Old English " to a particular period 
in the history of the language. There are, indeed, 
advantages and disadvantages connected with any 
terminology that may be adopted. It is certainly an 
argument in favor of the designation as Old English of 
what is here called Anglo-Saxon, that it makes promi- 
nent the continuity of our speech. It is an objection 
to it that, besides the inevitable ambiguity of the epi- 
thet ^ old,' it suggests wrong ideas as to the nature of 
that continuity. Still it would be folly to attach impor- 
tance to this particular subject. It is only those who 
magnify matters of minor consequence that will con- 
sider the question as one of much moment. I have, 



vi Preface to the Revised Edition, 

accordingly, taken pains to furnish the student with a 
precise account of that other one of the numerous 
terminologies proposed or used, which is now pre- 
ferred by many. 

It is hardly necessary to be observed that this 
work does not set out to be a treatise on usage. 
Yet it is inevitable that many questions connected 
with that subject should come up constantly in a 
description of the history of inflection. Hence a 
place is necessarily found in these pages for the ex- 
planation of the origin of various and varying pecu- 
liarities of expression, as. for instance, that of double 
plurals of the nouns like folk dcw^ folks, memorandtims 
and memo7'aiida; of participial forms like ^<?//<?;z and 
got, proved and proven; of phrases and construc- 
tions such as // is me, yoic zuas, he dare, between you 
and /, the house is being built, and, in fine, of a long 
list of locutions, the propriety of which is made a 
matter of constant contention. 

So far, in truth, as regards one particular branch of 
usage, this work may be fairly called complete. There 
are no anomalous grammatical forms belonging to the 
speech which are not here recorded, with an account 
given of their origin. The exact history of these will 
answer decisively numerous questions of disputed 
usage which can be answered in no other way. In 
order to have the work as serviceable as possible in 
this particular, the indexes have been made exceed- 
ingly full, wherever points of this kind are concerned. 

At the same time, in tracing the history of these 



Preface to the Revised Edition. vii 

disputed forms and phrases, I have not attempted to 
lay down what in my opinion ought to be, but simply 
to point out what is, and how it came to be what it is. 
My aim has been to furnish a trustworthy guide, to 
which any one in doubt about the propriety of a par- 
ticular form can go, with the assurance that he can 
find accurate and definite information that will enable 
him to comprehend clearly the arguments for and 
against its use, and will put him in a position to settle 
for himself in any given instance on which side the 
weight of authority lies. On certain points, indeed, the 
evidence is so entirely one-sided that no course is open 
save to pronounce an opinion in accordance with it. 
But this is rarely the fact. Usually the evidence is 
conflicting, and in such instances the most that can 
safely be said, in summing up, is that the present 
tendency of the language is to prefer one of two dis- 
puted forms or expressions — which is something 
quite different, however, from saying that the other 
form or expression is wrong. A scientific treatise has 
no business to set up as a standard of authority the 
preferences of particular persons : and in this matter 
diligent effort has been put forth to separate the facts 
of language from the fancies, the prejudices, and the 
theories of individuals, including those of the author 
himself. 

It it perhaps desirable, even if not absolutely 
necessary, to repeat the statement made in the preface 
to the previous editions, that the division of the 
history into two parts has involved in some instances 



viii Preface to the Revised Edition, 

the necessity of going over the same ground. In no 
case, however, will this be found to be mere repetition. 
And, w^hile the second part has been more particularly 
prepared for the special student, it is hoped that there 
is nothing in it which will present any difficulty to any 
reader of ordinary intelligence who cares to investigate 
the subject. 

In conclusion, in expressing my obhgations to many 
who have aided me in the revision of this work, I am 
bound to acknowledge my special indebtedness to my 
colleague. Prof. Albert S. Cook, who in all cases of 
doubt and difficulty, especially in connection with the 
earliest period of the speech, has invariably given me 
the benefit of his intimate acquaintance with the lan- 
guage of that time. From many others, too numerous 
to be mentioned by name, I have received help in this 
revision, either in the way of suggestion, or of criti- 
cism. There is, in truth, nothing more encouraging 
for the future of English scholarship in this country 
than the existence of so many enthusiastic students of 
our early language and Hterature, who are engaged in 
making special investigations of their own, and who 
never fail to communicate to those under their instruc- 
tion a portion of their own zeal. I can ask no better 
fortune for the revised edition of this work, than that 
to some shght extent it may be as helpful to them as 
the results of their labors have often been to me. 

T. R. LOUNSBURY. 
New Haven, Jan. 15, 1894. 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

LANGUAGES ALLIED TO THE ENGLISH. 

The Indo-European or Aryan Family of Languages. — 
I. The Indian Branch. — II. The Iranian Branch. — 
III. The Armenian.— The Albanian.— IV. The Hel- 
lenic Branch. — V. The Baltic- Slavic, or Letto- Slavic. 
— VI. The Celtic Branch.— VII. The Italic Branch.— 
VIII. The Teutonic Branch.— The Semitic Family. 



PAGE 



PART I. 
GENERAL HISTORY. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE ROMAN AND THE TEUTONIC CONQUEST OF BRITAIN. 

The Roman Conquest. — The Teutonic Conquest. — Names 
of the Teutonic Invading Tribes, and Kingdoms founded 
by them. — Rise of the Kingdom of Wessex , . .17 
ix 



Contents. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE. 

PAGE 

Language of the Teutonic Invaders, — Differences between 
Anglo-Saxon and Modern English. — Anglo-Saxon Lit- 
erature. — Poetry. — Prose. — The Anglo-Saxon Alpha- 
bet 26 

CHAPTER III. 

INFLUENCE OF FOREIGN TONGUES UPON THE ENGLISH 
OF THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD. 

The Celtic Element in Anglo-Saxon. — The Latin Ele- 
ment. — The Scandinavian Element . .. . .37 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE NORMAN CONQUEST AND THE FRENCH LANGUAGE 
IN ENGLAND. 

The Norman French. — The Norman Conquest. ^ Effect 
of the Conquest upon the Native Language. — French 
and English Languages on English Soil. — Rise in Im- 
portance of the English. — Loss of the English Pos- 
sessions in France. — Rise of ^lodern English Literature. 
— Debasement of Anglo-Norman French. — General 
Adoption of English by All Classes . . . .48 

CHAPTER V. 

PERIODS IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 

AND THE CHANGES WROUGHT IN IT BY THE 

NORMAN CONQUEST. 

The Language before the Conquest. — The Language after 
the Conquest. — Periods of the English Language. — 



Contents, xi 

PAGE 

Literature of the Old English Period (i 150-1350). — 
Abandonment of Alliterative Verse for Rhyme. — Changes 
in Grammar between Anglo-Saxon and Middle English. 
— Changes in Vocabulary. — Losses of Middle English 
as compared with Anglo-Saxon, in Vocabulary; in 
Formative Prefixes and Suffixes; in Self-explaining Com- 
pounds. — Gains of the Language 82 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE THREE DIALECTS OF EARLY ENGLISH, AND THE 
RISE OF THE MIDLAND. 

The Three Early English Dialects.— The Northern. — The 
Midland. — The Southern. — Geographical Limits of 
these Dialects. — Differences between the Northern and 
the Southern Dialect, in SpelHng; in Grammar; in Vo- 
cabulary. — Rise of the Midland. — The Scotch Dialect. 
— Early Scottish Literature 115 



CHAPTER VIL 

CHANGES IN THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 
(1350-1550)- 

Counteracting Influences Operating upon Language. — 
Changes in the Inflection of the Noun; of the Pronoun; 
of the Adjective; of the Verb. — Failure to Produce 
Complete Uniformity. — Gains and Losses of the In- 
flection. — Substitution of Natural for Grammatical 
Gender 140 



xii Contents. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

MODERN ENGLISH (155O-). 

PAGE 

Few Grammatical Changes. — Confusion of Case in the 
Pronoun. — Introduction of its. — Transition of be to 
the Subjunctive. — Substitution of -s for -th in the Third 
Person of the Present Indicative Singular. — New Pas- 
sive Formation. — Additions to the Vocabulary. — Set- 
tlement of the Orthography. — Wide Extension of 
EngHsh 161 



PART II. 
HISTORY OF INFLECTIONS. 



CHAPTER I. 

SOME FEATURES COMMON TO ALL THE TEUTONIC 
TONGUES. 

Case. — Number. — Declension. — Vowel Declension in o\ 
in i ; in u. — Consonant DeclensioJi. — Grammatic 
Change. — Vowel- Variation. — Vowel-Change. — Vowel- 
Modification .,..,,,., 193 

CHAPTER II. 

THE NOUN. 

I. Vowel Declension. — II. Consonant Declension. — Con- 
fusion of the Inflections. — Assimilation of the Cases. — 
Irregular Plurals. — Foreign Plurals ...... 209 



Contents, xiii 

CHAPTER III. 

THE ADJECTIVE. 

PAGE 

Indefinite (Pronominal or Strong) Declension. — Definite 
(Nominal or Weak) Declension. — Loss of the Adjec- 
tive Inflection. — Comparison. — Double Comparison. 
— Irregular Comparison 241 

CHAPTER IV, 

THE PRONOUN. 

The Demonstrative Pronouns. — The Personal Pronouns. — 
Loss and Confusion of Inflections. — The Possessive 
Pronouns. — His as Sign of the Genitive. — The Reflex- 
ive Pronouns. — Pronouns of Address. — The Interrog- 
ative Pronouns. — The Relative Pronouns. — The In- 
definite Pronouns 256 

CHAPTER V. 

THE VERB. 

The Teutonic Verb. — General Statements. — Conflict of 
the Strong and Weak Conjugations. — The Strong Con- 
jugation. — The Weak Conjugation. — Irregular Verbs 
of the Weak Conjugation — The Past Participle of the 
Strong Conjugation. — The Past Participle of the Weak 
Conjugation. — Number and Person. — Tenses of the 
Verb. — The Present Tense, Indicative and Subjunc- 
tive. — The Preterite of the Weak Conjugation. — The 
Preterite of the Strong Conjugation. — The Future 
Tense. — Future -perfect Tense. — The Perfect and Plu- 



xiv Contents, 



perfect. — The Imperative. — The Infinitive Mode. — 
The Participles. — Passive Formations. — The Preterite- 
present Verbs. — The Irregular Verbs, do^ go^ and be , 301 



Index to Subjects and Persons . . . c .481 
Index to Words and Phrases . • . . . 488 



ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 



INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 

LANGUAGES ALLIED TO THE ENGLISH. 

The most superficial student of speech is well 
acquainted with the fact that English is no isolated, 
independent tongue, but one of the members of a vast 
family, embracing languages far removed from one 
another, both in time and in space. This family 
occupied, at an early period, large districts of Asia, 
and nearly the whole of Europe; and during the last 
four hundred years its dom.ain has been extended still 
farther, over a great portion of the habitable globe. 
Various names have been employed to designate it 
as a whole. Of these the ones in most common 
use are Indo-Germanic, Indo-European, and Aryan, 
especially the last two. 

Every one of the Indo-European languages is more 

or less closely related to every other by the fact of 

descent from a common mother-tongue. Of this 

common mother-tongue no literary monuments of 

I 



2 English Language. 

any sort have been handed down; nor is the place 
known where it was originally spoken, nor the time 
when. Its earliest home has, indeed, been ascribed 
with much positiveness to various regions, both in 
Asia and in Europe. But for any such special assign- 
ment there has never been furnished any satisfactory 
proof; hardly, in fact, anything that can be deemed 
evidence. 

This only we can say, that, at some remote periods 
of the past, members of the race that spoke the primi- 
tive Indo-European speech, or later descendants of it, 
parted company from one another, wandered in vari- 
ous directions, and finally formed permanent settle- 
ments far apart. Lapse of time and separation in 
space caused differences to spring up between these 
dispersed communities, — differences in customs, in 
beliefs, and, what most concerns us here, in language. 
The divergences that arose became, in the course of 
events, so much more important and conspicuous than 
the resemblances which had been preserved, that, 
when the scattered races and peoples that had sprung 
from this one primitive Indo-European tribe appear 
in recorded history as coming into contact with one 
another, they are totally unaware of the tie of blood or 
of speech that subsists between them. Nor was the 
fact of this relationship established by modern scholars 
until within the past hundred years. 

The scientific study which has been carried on in 
the present century of the languages of the Ind - 
European family shows that in all branches of it there 



Languages allied to the English, 3 

is a certain number of grammatical forms which bear 
a resemblance to each other so close that the conclu- 
sion is inevitable that they must have come from a 
common source. The same assertion can be made as 
to certain words found in all these tongues, especially 
personal pronouns, numerals, and nouns denoting the 
family relation. These are even more than proofs of 
a common descent. The common existence of these 
forms and words in languages far apart in space and 
time makes it clear that they must have belonged to 
the speech of the primitive Indo-European community 
before its dispersion into separate ones. From it they 
must have been transmitted to all its descendants. 
By a comparison of the forms and words thus pre- 
served in the derived languages, it has been possible 
to construct a theoretical primitive language, which 
is the remote parent of every tongue included in this 
family. 

Bound to each other, therefore, by the fact of com- 
mon descent, all Indo-European tongues necessarily 
are; but it likewise follows that the relationship ex- 
isting between some is much closer than that between 
others. According to the nearness of this relationship 
among themselves, the languages of the Indo-Euro- 
pean stock have been divided into distinct 
branches. 

As a result of the progress of knowledge, and of 
the special study of individual tongues, these divi- 
sions are always liable to undergo modification in 
details, and to require restatement of their precise 



4 English Language. 

limits. Their substantial accuracy, however, is in 
no danger of being disturbed. They are as fol- 
lows : — 

I. The Indian — This embraces the languages of 
Northern Hindostan. Its great representative is the 
Sanskrit. In its earliest form this goes back to about 
two thousand years before the Christian era, and 
about three centuries before that epoch, it died out 
as a spoken tongue. It is the oldest of all the 
languages of the Indo-European family, and as a 
whole comes nearest to the primitive speech. 

II. The Iranian — This is so called from Iran, the 
ancient name of the country from Kurdistan to 
Afghanistan. The tw^o ancient tongues belonging to 
it are the Persian of the cuneiform or arrow-headed 
inscriptions, and the so-called Zend, the language of 
the Avesta, the Bible of the Parsis of Western India. 
The principal existing representative is the modern 
Persian, with a literature dating from about the tenth 
century. 

These two branches, on account of their pecu- 
liarly close connection, are now frequently united 
as constituting but one branch, which is termed 
Indic-Iranic or Aryan. 

III. The Armenian — The sole representative of 
this branch is the old Armenian, once spoken in 
the region south of the Caucasus and in the 
north-eastern part of Asia Minor. At one time 
it was reckoned as belonging to the Iranian 
branch. 



Lmigttages allied to the English, 5 

IV. The Hellenic. — This is so called from the 
Hellenes, the inhabitants of Hellas, the names by 
which the Greeks have always designated them- 
selves and their country. This branch includes 
the ancient Greek, with its various dialects, the 
^olic, the Doric, the Ionic, and in particular the 
Attic, which became at last the common language. 
Its existing representative is the Romaic or Modern 
Greek. 

The Albanian, the representative of the ancient 
Illyrian, whose linguistic relationship was at one 
time somewhat uncertain, is now recognized as an 
Indo-European tongue, and is treated by many as 
constituting a distinct branch of the family. It is 
spoken in the region north-west of Greece, which 
lies opposite the heel of the Italian peninsula. 
Besides the Albanian element proper, it includes 
Italic, Hellenic, and Turkish elements. 

V. The Baltic-Slavic, or Letto-Slavic. — The Slavic 
group includes the languages spoken over a large 
portion of Eastern Europe. Of this branch the 
Russian is much the most important. The 
Russian belongs to the Eastern division, of which 
the most ancient tongue is the Bulgarian. The 
principal languages of the Western division are the 
Polish and the Bohemian. The other group 
called the Lettish or Lithuanic, embracing dia» 
lects spoken about the Baltic, was formerly 
reckoned at times as a distinct branch of the Indo= 
European family. 



6 , English Language. 

With none of these has the English any intimate 
relationship, though from the ancient Greek it has 
borrowed a moderately large number of words. With 
the three remaining branches its connections are 
nearer, though varying in their nature. With the 
first it has come into close geographical contact; from 
the second it has taken full half of its literary vocabu- 
lary; of the third it is itself a member. 

VI. The Celtic. — This ' branch was once widely 
spread over Western Europe; but it is now confined 
to portions of the British Isles, and to the peninsula 
of Brittany in North-western France. It is divided 
into the two following clearly defined groups : — 

I St, The Cymric. To this belong the languages or 
dialects once used throughout the whole of England 
and Southern Scotland, but now limited to the prin- 
cipality of Wales, and represented in it by the tongue 
we call the Welsh. There is one other living tongue 
besides the Welsh. This is the Breton, spoken in the 
peninsula of Brittany just mentioned, and sometimes 
called Armorican from Armorica, the ancient name 
of that region. This language has a close affinity 
with the third member of the group, the Cornish, 
once the speech of the extreme south-west of Great 
Britain, but which died out entirely in the eighteenth 
century. 

2d, The Gadhelic or Goidelic. Of this group the 
most important member is the Erse or Irish, the 
native language of Ireland. Two other tongues belong 
to it — the Gaelic, spoken in parts of the Scottish 



La?ig7cages allied to the English. 7 

Highlands, and the Manx, spoken by a portion of the 
population of the Isle of Man. 

The Celtic tongues are all dying out, in some 
places slowly, in others rapidly. In the British Isles 
they are giving way to the encroachments of the 
English, and in France to that of the French. Lin- 
guistically they are widely removed from our speech, 
and, in spite of their geographical nearness, have had 
no influence worth speaking of on its vocabulary, and 
none at all on its grammar. 

VII. The Italic. — The Latin is the great represent- 
ative of all the ancient languages included in this 
branch, and is the parent of all the modern ones 
belonging to it. These latter are collectively called 
Romanic or Romance. They are descended from the 
Latin spoken by the common people {lingua Latina 
rustica), which was in several particulars different 
from the Latin that has been handed down in liter- 
ature. Between the two numerous variations early 
existed, and these continued to increase during the 
last centuries of the Roman Empire of the West. 
These differences were in pronunciation, in vocabu- 
lary, and in inflection. As regards the last, the six 
cases of the classical Latin were, in this tongue of the 
common people, largely reduced in number. Forms 
of the verbs also fell away. Finally from this cor- 
rupt popular speech were successively developed 
between the tenth and thirteenth centuries the five 
literary languages of Western Europe, — the French 
and the Provengal, the Spanish and the Portuguese, 



8 English Language, 

and the Italian. The use of French was at first con- 
fined to Northern France; while Provengal, or the 
Languedoc, was the speech of the South of that 
country. The latter, during the twelfth and thir- 
teenth centuries especially, flourished as a language of 
literature, and in it was then composed the poetry of 
the troubadours. But the political preponderance 
of Northern France carried with it the supremacy 
of the tongue spoken in it; and the Provengal sank 
from the position of a cultivated language to that of 
a dialect. 

In various parts of South-eastern Europe there also 
survives a descendant of the Latin, the most impor- 
tant dialect of which is the Roumanian. This is 
spoken in the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, 
constituting the present kingdom of Roumania, and 
also in certain adjacent portions of the Austrian 
Empire. The vocabulary of this tongue has been 
largely affected by the languages with which it has 
come into contact, and especially has there been 
a large admixture of Slavonic words. During the 
present century it has begun to attain some promi- 
nence as a language of literature. Still another 
descendant of the Latin is a popular speech, which 
may be roughly described as used by scattered com- 
munities from Friuli in North-eastern Italy to the 
Grisons in South-eastern Switzerland. It is broken 
up into a number of dialects, but is sometimes called 
as a whole the Ladino. To it is also given the name 
of Rhaeto-Romanic, from the ancient Roman province 



Languages allied to the English, 9 

of Rhaetia — a term which is often specifically ap- 
plied to the dialect of it spoken in Switzerland. 

The influence of the Italic branch upon English 
has been very great so far as regards vocabulary. 
This is especially true of the classical Latin and of 
the French. Italian and Spanish have also con- 
tributed a limited number of terms. The Latin and 
Romance elements in our tongue, owing to circum- 
stances connected with its history, make up fully 
one-half of the number of words used in literature, 
though the grammar of English has been but slightly 
affected by any of the languages of this stock. 

VIII. The Teutonic. — Of this branch, which is 
termed by some the Germanic, English may be justly 
called the most important member. As we have no 
remains of the primitive Indo-European, so we have 
none of the primitive Teutonic speech, from which 
all the modern tongues have descended. The branch 
is now usually divided into two classes, the East- 
Germanic and the West-Germanic. Proof of the 
closeness of the relationship existing between the 
members of the East-Germanic division has not been 
made out so clearly as that which exists between the 
members of the West-Germanic; but the classification 
now common will be followed here, and in accord- 
ance with it a detailed description of groups and 
individual languages will be given. 

I. To the East-Germanic class belong : — 

I. The Gothic. — This was the tongue spoken by 
the Goths who dwelt in the Roman province of 



lO English Language. 

Moesia on the Lower Danube. Hence it is some- 
times called the Moeso-Gothic. It is the eldest of 
the Teutonic tongues that have handed down memo- 
rials of their existence, and naturally is much the most 
ancient in its forms. It stands, indeed, in the same 
relation to the other members of this branch that the 
Sanskrit does to all the members of the Indo- 
European family. Its principal literary monument 
is only partially preserved. This was a translation 
of the Bible made in the fourth century into the 
language of the Goths of Moesia, by Ulfilas, their 
bishop. The speech died out in the ninth century, 
and has left no descendants. 

2. The Scandinavian^ or Norse, — The oldest rep- 
resentative of this group is the Old Norse, or, as it is 
sometimes called, the Old Icelandic. To Iceland it 
was carried in the ninth century by settlers from 
Norway, and there gave birth to a brilliant literature. 
The modern Scandinavian tongues are the Icelandic, 
the Swedish, the Danish, and the Norwegian. 
II. To the West-Germanic class belong: — 
I. The High German. — This is so called because 
originally spoken in Upper or Southern Germany; 
though the modern literary High German represents 
as well the tongues spoken in Midland Germany. 
The history of the dialects belonging to it is divided 
into three periods. The first is that of the Old High 
German, extending from the eighth to the twelfth 
century. The second period is that of Middle 
High German, extending from the twelfth to the 



Languages allied to the English, 1 1 

sixteenth century. Its literature is very abundant 
in quantity, and rich in quality. The New High 
German begins with the writings of the reformer 
Luther, in the first half of the sixteenth century, 
especially with his translation of the Bible. It is 
the language of all modern German literature, and is 
usually termed by us simply the German. 

Next follows a group of tongues, which as spoken 
by the dwellers of Northern or Lower Germany, is 
commonly called the Low Germanic. To this group 
belong the following : — 

2. The Low Frankish, which was spoken princi- 
pally in the Netherlands, and hence during portions 
of its history has been called the Netherlandish. It 
is now represented by the Dutch of Holland, and the 
Flemish spoken in portions of Belgium. The Flem- 
ish, as a literary language, is essentially a dialect of 
the Dutch. 

3. The Old Saxon, which may roughly be de- 
scribed as having been spoken in the region between 
the Rhine and the Elbe, though not in the extreme 
North. Its principal monument is a poem of the 
ninth century, written in alliterative verse, and 
entitled the Heliand, or ^Healer.' As regards its 
subject, it is a life of Christ based upon the four 
gospels. The modern representative of this tongue 
is the Piatt Deutsch, sometimes called simply Low 
German. This is the speech of the peasantry of 
Northern Germany, and extends with decided dialec- 
tic variations from the Rhine to Pomerania. The 



12 English Lang2iage, 

predominance of High German has prevented any 
general development of it as a language of literature, 
but many works have been written in it, among which 
the poems and tales of Fritz Renter (1810-1874) are 
especially noteworthy. 

4. The Frisian, or Friesic, which was spoken in 
the narrow strip of coast north of the territory occu- 
pied by the Old Saxon, and in the adjacent islands. 
It is now much more restricted in space, being 
limited to a few country districts on the mainland 
and to a few islands along the coast. Its earliest 
monuments are a collection of laws, contracts, and 
oiHcial documents which. go back no farther than the 
fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. At the present 
time it exists only as a popular speech, though 
attempts have been made of late to cultivate it as a 
literary language. 

5. Closely allied to the Frisian is the Saxon or 
English, which is the most important of the whole 
group. In the fifth and sixth centuries it was carried 
to Great Britain by the Saxons and Angles. There 
it had a history, and developed a literature pecul- 
iarly its own. The earliest form of it is commonly 
designated by modern writers as Anglo-Saxon, or Old 
English. 

There are several other families of speech found 
over the earth, but so far no evidence of relationship 
has been shown to exist between any of them and the 
Indo-European. One of the most important of these 
is the Semitic. It is so called because it was once 



Languages allied to the English, 1 3 

assumed that the peoples who spoke the tongues 
belonging to it were the descendants of Shem, the 
eldest son of Noah; and for a similar reason the term 
Japhetic has occasionally been applied to the Indo- 
European. To the Semitic family belong among 
others, Assyrian, Syrian, Phoenician, Hebrew, and 
Arabic. There is still another family called vari- 
ously the Turanian, or the Tartaric, or the Scythian, 
which includes among its members the tongues 
spoken by the Finns, the Hungarians, and the Turks. 
But though our speech has borrowed words from some 
of these languages, and from languages belonging to 
still other families, between it and any one of them 
no trace of the slightest real connection can be dis- 
covered. 

As contrasted with these, English can therefore be 
spoken of with sufficient accuracy as a member of 
the Indo-European family of languages. As con- 
trasted with its numerous related tongues, it is more 
specifically to be described as a member of the Low 
Germanic group of the Teutonic branch of that family. 
Its history, like that of all other tongues, naturally 
divides itself into two parts. The first embraces 
what, for lack of a better term, may be called its 
general history; that is, the account of the circum- 
stances and conditions under which it developed its 
present form, of the external agencies that operated 
upon it, especially of the social and political influ- 
ences that affected it, that modified it, and that, in 
particular, changed the character of its vocabulary, and 



14 English Language, 

transformed it from an inflectional speech into one 
nearly non-inflectional. The second is the history of 
the internal changes which took place within the lan- 
guage itself. It is obvious at a glance that the latter 
is a far more intricate and extensive subject than the 
former. It embraces, indeed, a vast variety of sub- 
jects, the full consideration of any one of which would 
require a separate volume. This work will treat of so 
much only of this internal history as is concerned with 
the variations of form that have taken place in the 
noun, the adjective, the pronoun, and the verb, caused 
by change or loss of inflection. Some notice will 
necessarily be taken, in addition, of the steps which 
the language has resorted to in order to increase its 
resources, and to repair the losses it has sustained, 
either by the development of forms entirely new, or 
the application of old forms to new uses. This is 
but a small portion of the immense field which must 
be covered in any full account of the interior growth 
and development of our speech; but beyond these 
limits there will, in this treatise, be no attempt to go. 



Part I. 

GENERAL HISTORY 



CHAPTER I. 

THE RdMAN AND THE TEUTONIC CONQUEST OF 
BRITAIN. 

The English tongue is at the present time the 
speech of communities scattered over all the globe; 
but its history as a language is almost wholly confined 
to the island of Great Britain. There it was that the 
violent changes which took place in the social and 
political condition of the people were indirectly fol- 
lowed by as violent changes in the character and 
grammatical structure of the words they spoke. 
Without an adequate knowledge of the former, no 
one can gain a satisfactory conception of the latter. 
The Celts, the Romans, the Saxons, the Northmen, 
and the French have met or succeeded one another 
upon British soil; and the occupation of the country 
by each has left ineffaceable records of itself in the 
tongue we use to-day. But English was not the 
original speech of the island. In the modern form 
in which we know it, it can, indeed, hardly lay claim 
to a higher age than five hundred years. It is, there- 
fore, quite as important to understand clearly what 
English is not, as well as what it is. 
17 



1 8 English Language. 

The Roman Conquest. — Great Britain can hardly 
be said to be known to history until a short time 
before the Christian era. Our first positive informa- 
tion in regard to it we owe to Julius Caesar, who, after 
his conquest of Gaul, turned his attention to the 
island, and twice invaded it, — once in 55 B.C., and 
again in the following year. He found there a people 
allied in blood and speech to the one he 'had just 
brought under Roman sway, and both belonging to 
the race called Celtic, then widely spread over West- 
ern Europe. It v/as the Cymric branch of this family, 
now represented in Great Britain by the Welsh, that 
had possession of most of the island; and it was with 
this that Caesar came into contact. His si ccess was 
rather nominal than real; for though he marched a 
little way into the interior, and exacted the payment of 
a tribute, he seems, in the words of Tacitus, to have 
handed down to posterity the discovery of the country 
rather than its possession. 

For nearly a hundred years after Caesar's invasion, 
Great Britain remained unmolested by the Romans. 
But in the reign of the Emperor Claudius a renewed 
attempt at conquest began in a.d. 42, and was kept 
up without intermission till near the close of the first 
century. By that time the reduction of the island 
was accomplished as far as the Forth. Beyond that 
the invaders never gained anything but a temporary 
foothold. A wall extending for about forty miles 
across the narrow interval between the friths of Forth 
and of Clyde marked the extreme northern limit of 
the permanent Roman occupation. 



TJie Roman Co7iqnest. 19 

With the conquest of the greater portion of the 
island the Romans began that energetic administra- 
tion, which, in the case of Gaul and Spain, ended in 
making the native inhabitants of those countries as 
Latin as the inhabitants of Italy itself. Colonies 
were established, towns were fortified, military roads 
were constructed. With their laws and customs, the 
invaders introduced also their Language and literature. 
These last early became popular. We have the state- 
ment of Tacitus that Agricola, the Roman governor 
of Britain from 78 to 84 a.d., caused the sons of the 
principal chiefs to be instructed in the liberal arts; 
and that, as a result of this policy, those who had 
previously disdained the Latin language sought to 
gain the ability to speak it fluently. Later in 100 
A.D., the epigrammatist Martial was able to boast 
that even Britain was said to recite his poems. 

The attention paid to Latin literature and the 
employment of the Latin tongue must indeed have 
steadily increased during the more than three hundred 
years in which the Romans occupied the island. Yet, 
however widely that speech was then used, it mani- 
festly never made its way in Britain as it did in Gaul 
and Spain. It was without doubt chiefly confined to 
the educated classes and to the dwellers in cities; 
for, with the withdrawal of the Romans in the early 
part of the fifth century, their language disappeared 
almost as completely. But slight vestiges of it are 
to be found in the W^elsh, the present representative 
of the tongue then spoken by most of the native 



20 English Language. 

inhabitants of the island. Even if a few words thus 
derived can be discovered, there is not perhaps a 
single one of them that has passed directly from this 
source over into the English tongue. 

Traces of the Roman occupation are, indeed, to be 
found in names of towns. That the -coin of Lincoln 
is due to colonia is perhaps doubtful ; but the Latin 
castra, ' camp,' is certainly preserved in the names 
of a large number of places ending in -caster, 
'Cester, and -Chester, as Lancaster, Worcester, and 
Winchester. Likewise the word ' street,' which is 
merely the first word of strata via, ^ paved way,' may 
have come to us in consequence of the Teutonic 
invaders hearing the term first applied by the Britons 
to the Roman military roads; but this is doubtful, for 
the same term appears very early in all the Teutonic 
dialects. It is possible that one or two other words 
may have been derived in this way from this source; 
but it is evident that the Latin of the Roman occupa- 
tion exercised no appreciable influence upon the 
English speech properly so called. Still, as the 
Roman names of towns have been retained to this 
day, to the words denoting these is often given the 
title of ''Latin of the First Period." 
., The Teutonic Conquest. — Up to this time, English 
was not known in the island. It was to the Teutonic 
invasion, which followed soon after the Roman occu- 
pation ceased, that we owe the introduction of our 
language into Great Britain, and the gradual dis- 
placement of the Celtic tongues. 



The Teutonic Conquest. 21 

The story of this Teutonic invasion and conquest 
IS in many respects obscure and uncertain; but, while 
numerous details may be mythical rather than histori- 
cal, the general statement cannot be far from the 
truth. The common account runs somewhat as fol- 
lows : Of the western provinces of the Roman Empire, 
Great Britain was the last to be conquered, the first 
to be abandoned. Its inhabitants were left, in the 
first half of the fifth century, exposed to the attacks of 
the dwellers in the northern part of the island, the 
Picts and Scots, who had never been really subdued, 
and whose incursions had always been, from the time 
of the first conquest, a source of annoyance and alarm. 
In their extremity the wretched population called for 
aid upon certain Teutonic tribes dwelling upon the 
north coast of Germany. It was by these the English 
language was brought into Great Britain; for the new 
auxiliaries did not long remain contented with the 
limited territory which had been assigned them, but, 
soon turning their arms against their allies, ended at 
last in conquering the country they came to save. 

This invasion is said to have begun about the 
middle of the fifth century. It is more than prob- 
able, to be sure, that, previous to this time, Teutonic 
bands had made marauding descents upon the coast; 
it is not impossible that they had formed scattered 
settlements. About the end of the fourth century 
one of the Roman military officers stationed in Britain 
was styled "Count of the Saxon Frontier" {Comes 
Limitis Saxonici per Britanniain)', and his jurisdic- 



22 English Language. 

tion extended from the Wash to Southampton. This 
stretch of coast may have been called the Saxon 
Frontier because Saxons inhabited it: the more 
reasonable assumption is that it was so called because 
the Saxons molested it. 

Names of the Teutonic Invading Tribes, and King- 
doms founded by them. — The Teutonic invaders were 
Low Germans, and belonged to three tribes, — the 
Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles. According to 
the dates furnished by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 
Hengist and Horsa came over in 449 with a body 
of Jutes, and subsequently founded the kingdom of 
Kent. They also occupied the Isle of Wight. In 
477 ^lla landed near the present city of Chichester, 
and founded the kingdom of the South Saxons, or 
Sussex. This, roughly speaking, includes the present 
counties of Surrey and Sussex. In 495 Cerdic came 
over, and in 519 founded the kingdom of the West 
Saxons, or Wessex. This by successive conquests 
came finally to include nearly all South-west England, 
with a portion of the country north of the upper 
waters of the Thames. There were also Saxons north 
of the Thames, occupying the present counties of 
Essex and Middlesex. 

Sussex, Wessex, and Essex are usually spoken of 
as the three Saxon monarchies. There were likewise 
kingdoms founded by the Angles. Their collective 
territory embraced much the larger part of Great 
Britain, but their origin is wrapped in even deeper 
obscurity than that of the others. The largest of 



The Te2Lto7iic Conquest, 23 

these was the kingdom of Northumbria, which 
extended from the Humber to the Forth, and conse- 
quently included the greater portion of the Scottish 
Lowlands. We know nothing of its early history. 
The establishment of its monarchy is ascribed to the 
year 547, under which date the Anglo-Saxon Chroni- 
cle states that " Ida came to the throne, from whom 
sprang the royal race of the Northumbrians." It was 
frequently divided into the two kingdoms of Deira 
and Bernicia. The former extended from the Hum- 
ber to the Tees, and was about the same as the present 
county of York. The latter stretched from the Tees 
to the Frith of Forth. 

Besides Northumbria, there was the kingdom of 
East Anglia, which included the modern Norfolk and 
Suffolk (the North-folk and the South-folk)^ and parts 
of other counties. The last Anglian kingdom to be 
formed was that of Mercia, — the "March," or fron- 
tier. This in process of time came to be one of the 
largest, and to embrace most of the central counties 
of England. These seven monarchies are often 
popularly but loosely spoken of as the Heptarchy. 

From the account just given, it appears that the 
Teutonic conquest of Great Britain was chiefly the 
work of two tribes, — the Saxons and the Angles. It 
further appears that the former settled mainly in the 
southern part of the island; while the latter occupied 
the centre and north of England and the Lowlands of 
Scotland. The Angles had. a marked superiority, 
both in their numbers, and in the extent of territory 



24 English Language. 

they occupied. When, therefore, any characteristic 
differences that may have originally existed between 
the tribes began to disappear, and the two peoples 
blended in one, it is no matter of wonder that the 
name of the larger body should be taken to designate 
the country the two possessed in common. Englisc, 
^English,' was the title usually given, after the ninth 
century, to the race and language. Englaland (con- 
tracted, England), ' land of the Angles, ' came later 
to be the name applied to the whole country from 
the Channel to the Frith of Forth. 

But, though the Angles were the more numerous, 
the Saxons seem to have been the first to come into 
contact with the native population; for it was the title 
which the conquered race gave to all the invaders. 
Even to this day, to the Celtic inhabitant of the 
British Isles, whether Cymric or Gadhelic, the Eng- 
lishman is not an Englishman, but a Saxon or 
Sassenach. It is not improbable, therefore, that 
this tribe made the earliest marauding descents upon 
the entire length of coast. On the other hand, the 
invaders spoke of the native population sometimes as 
Britons, sometimes as Welsh (A. S. Welisc, Welsc, 
^foreign, ' from A. S. Wealh, a ^foreigner '). 

Rise of the Kingdom of Wessex. — The conquest 
of the country was no rapid or easy task. The native 
population resisted fiercely, and gave way slowly. 
Every accession of territory was gained at the cost 
of hard fighting. Still, under incessant attacks, the 
Britons were steadily, though slowly, pushed back 



TJie Teutonic Conqtcest. 25 

towards the western shore of the island; and at the 
beginning of the ninth century the portion of country 
directly under their sway was limited to the present 
county of Cornwall (West Wales), to the present 
principality of Wales (North Wales), and to a strip 
along the north-western coast of England and south- 
western coast of Scotland. 

But the invaders wxre not only constantly fighting 
the native Celtic inhabitants, they were as constantly 
engaged in hostilities among themselves. As a result, 
the size and the number of the various kingdoms they 
founded were constantly changing. With the acces- 
sion, however, in 802, of Egbert to the throne of 
Wessex, the kingdom of the West Saxons became the 
ruling one, — a supremacy which it never after lost. 
Before the death of that monarch, which took place 
in 839, his authority was acknowledged by all the 
invaders that had settled in Great Britain, and was 
submitted to by the people of West and of North 
Wales. In the following century, during the reigns 
of Edward the Elder (901-925) and Athelstan (925- 
940), the son and grandson of Alfred the Great (871- 
901), the power of the house of Wessex became 
permanently established over the w^hole island; and 
the kings of that line were recognized as immediate 
lords of all the English inhabitants, and as superior 
lords of all the Celtic. At this point the Teutonic 
conquest of Britain may be said to have been fully 
achieved. 



CHAPTER IL 
THE ANGLO-SAXON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE. 

Language of the Teutonic Invaders. — Up to the 
accession of Egbert, the speech of the Teutonic 
invaders of Britain, while doubtless the same essen- 
tially, was broken up into a number of dialects. 
None of these, except, possibly, the Northumbrian, 
possessed what we should term a literature. The 
Latin charters of the early kings in several places 
make distinct mention of the dialect of Kent; but in 
that no literary work of any extent was then com- 
posed, or, if composed, it has not been handed down 
in its original form. Still the few monuments of the 
early speech that have been preserved enable us to 
recognize, before the end of the eighth century, the 
existence of four principal dialects. Two of them 
are Anglian — the Mercian and the Northumbrian, 
which were spoken throughout the region north of the 
Thames to the furthest limit of the Teutonic occu- 
pation of what is now Scotland. The other two, 
spoken mainly south of the Thames, were the West- 
Saxon and the Kentish. 

It is not likely that any one of these four dialects 
possessed originally any authority outside of its own 
26 



Anglo-Saxon Language and Litei^ature. 27 

districtc With the accession, however, of the royal 
house of Wessex to the rule of Teutonic England, this 
condition of things underwent a change. Linguistic 
supremacy, other, things being equal, is sure to follow 
political : the dialect of Wessex, accordingly, became 
the cultivated language of the whole people, — the 
language in which books were written and laws were 
published. During the reign of Alfred (871-901) it 
began to develop a literature, which, before the 
Norman Conquest, attained no slight proportions. It 
is in this West-Saxon dialect that nearly all the exist- 
ing monuments of our earliest speech were composed^ 
or, it would be more correct to say, have been pre- 
served. Still, besides these, we have extant a few 
interlinear glosses — that is, translations inserted 
between the lines — written in the language of North- 
umbria, the parent- tongue of the present dialects of 
the North of England and of the Scottish Lowlands, 

The langxiage of the Teutonic invaders was origi- 
nally called by them Saxon or English, according as 
they themselves were Saxons or Angles.) It continued, 
even down to the eleventh century, to be thus vari- 
ously designated in their own Latin writings^ Stilx 
the superiority of the Angles, arising from vastly 
greater numbers, from larger territory, and perhaps 
from an earlier cultivation of literature, eventually, 
and to all appearance speedily, made the name 
belonging to them predominant. It survived the 
decay of their political power. Though the kings 
of the West Saxons attained to the supremacy; though 



28 English Language, 

Winchester, the West-Saxon capital, became the capi- 
tal of the whole country; though the West-Saxon 
dialect became the language of all who wrote, the 
name applied both to the race and the tongue was 
usually ^;^^//Vf, that is, ^English.' From the ninth 
century on, it is the only term applied to it by those 
who wrote in it. When, in the sixteenth and seven- 
teenth centuries, a revival of the study of our early 
speech took place, it was sometimes called Saxon, 
sometimes English-Saxon, and sometimes Anglo- 
Saxon. The last designation, as recognizing the 
names of the two principal invading tribes, has been 
until recently the one generally adopted. By many 
it is now styled Old English. In this work Anglo- 
Saxon will be used to mark a period in the history of 
the English language extending from 450 to 1150, or 
nearly a century after the Norman Conquest; and, 
when employed without limitation, will designate that 
dialect of it called specifically the West-Saxon. As 
an equivalent phrase, "English of the Anglo-Saxon 
period " will also be used. 

Differences between Anglo-Saxon and Modern Eng- 
lish. — Both in grammar and in vocabulary Anglo- 
Saxon differed widely from Modern English. It was 
what, in the technical language of grammarians, is 
called a synthetic language; that is, a language, like 
the Latin, which expresses by changes in the form of 
the words themselves, the modifications of meaning 
they undergo, and their relations to one another in 
the sentence. It had two principal declensions of 



Anglo-Saxofi Language and Literattire. 29 

the Doun, with several subordinate declensions under 
one of them.^ It had two declensions of the adjective, 
according as its substantive was to be represented as 
definite or indefinite.^ It had a distinct form for four 
cases in the substantive. It had two leading conjuga- 
tions of the verb, with subordinate conjugations under 
each.^ As a necessary accompaniment of this fulness 
of inflection, it possessed in comparison with the 
present tongue, a somewhat complicated syntax. On 
the other hand. Modern English is what is called an 
analytic language. The relations of ideas which 
were once expressed by termination and inflection 
are now, with the disappearance of these, expressed, 
instead, by the use of prepositions and their cases, 
and by the arrangement of words in the sentence. 
Still the grammatical structure, what there is left of 
it, is purely Teutonic. 

Even more marked is the difference between the 
ancient and the modern tongue in the vocabulary. A 
vast number of words belonging to the Anglo-Saxon 
no longer exist for us, even in a changed form. The 
places of these have been supplied by borrowing from 
other languages, especially from Latin and French. 
This has been carried on to an extent which, if 
vocabulary alone were considered, would make it 
doubtful whether our tongue is Teutonic or Romanic. 

Anglo-Saxon Literature. — Poetry. — The Teutonic 
invaders were originally heathen, and no written 

1 See Part II. sees. 24, 25, and 27. 
2 lb. sees. 69-73. ^ lb. sees. 152-156. 



30 English Language. 

literature existed among them before their conversion 
to Christianity. This took place in the seventh 
century. Of the dialects of Anglo-Saxon, the West- 
Saxon is the only one that has handed down produc- 
tions of any literary value, though many and perhaps 
most of them were pretty certainly composed origi- 
nally in the Northumbrian. They consist of a 
number of works, both in prose and poetry. The 
latter, as in all early literatures^ was much the more 
important, and presents a marked contrast, alike in 
character and construction, to the verse of later 
times. Its distinguishing peculiarity, as regards 
form, was, that it was alliterative; that is to say, it 
depended, not upon final rhyme, nor upon regularity 
of accent, nor upon the existence of a fixed number 
of syllables in the line, but upon the fact that a 
certain number of the more important words in the 
same line began with the same letter. According to 
the usual, though not invariable, arrangement, two 
principal words in the first section of the line, and 
one in the second section, began with the same letter, 
if a consonant. If words beginning with vowels were 
employed, the vowels were not required to be the 
same. Unaccented prefixes were not regarded, as 
the ge in ge-wat of the following illustration of this 
method of versification : — 

Gt-wdl fa ofer waeg-holm * wrndt ge-fysed 
uFlota/amig-heals '/ugle gelicost. 

W^nt then over the sea-wave, wind-impelled, 
The 3oat with 3ow of foam, likest a bird. 



Anglo-Saxon Language and Literatm'e. 31 

As regards subject, Anglo-Saxon poetry was mainly 
of a religious character. To a large extent it con- 
sisted of versifications of the narratives contained in 
the Bible, and of legends of saints and martyrs. Still 
its most important work is the epic of "Beowulf," 
which celebrates the deeds of a Scandinavian hero of 
that name. This exists in only a single imperfect 
manuscript of the tenth century; but the original com- 
position of the poem is thought by many to go back 
to the period before the conversion of the people 
to Christianity. The next most important work is 
a version of some of the Bible narratives, generally 
attributed to Csedmon, a Northumbrian monk who 
flourished in the middle of the seventh century. But 
if these were his composition, they have not been 
preserved in the form in which they were written; for 
it is not in the Northumbrian, but in the West-Saxon 
dialect that they now exist. Another poet of this 
early period is Cynewulf, who probably flourished 
about the close of the eighth century, and in the early 
part of the ninth. 

The whole of Anglo-Saxon poetry which is extant 
amounts to about thirty thousand lines, and a large 
proportion of it has been preserved in two volumes. 
One of them is the Codex Exoniensis, or Exeter 
Book, — a collection which is supposed to be the one 
mentioned among the gifts made in the eleventh 
century to St. Peter' s monastery in Exeter by Bishop 
Leofric. It is there spoken of as "a large English 
book of various matters composed in song-wise " 



32 English Language, 

{niycel Englisc hoc be gehwylcuni pingicm on leodunsan 
geworht). The other is the Codex Vercellensis, — a 
collection found in 1822 at Vercelli in Northern 
Italy. 

Prose. — The language of Anglo-Saxon poetry stands 
at the farthest possible remove from that of daily life. 
It constantly repeats the same ideas in slightly vary- 
ing phrases; it uses numerous compound words pecul- 
iar to itself; the construction of its sentences is 
often involved and intricate, and the meaning in 
consequence obscure; and through it all, with a 
certain grandeur, there is joined a certain monotony 
from the little range of thought or expression found 
in it. On the other hand, Anglo-Saxon prose is for 
the most part exceedingly simple in its construction. 
It may be said to begin with King Alfred, who is, 
indeed, its most prominent author. Like the poetry, 
its subject-matter is mainly religious, and to a large 
extent it is made up of translations from the Latin. 
Still two of its most important monuments are purely 
original, and remain of especial value to the present 
day. One of these is a collection of the laws of vari- 
ous kings. The other is a series of annals called 
the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle," in which the events 
of each year are recorded under that date. Of this 
work one manuscript extends down to the death of 
King Stephen in 1 154. Anglo-Saxon prose is of great 
interest from a linguistic point of view : as literature, 
it is, in general, dull beyond description. 

The following specimen of Anglo-Saxon prose is 



Anglo-Saxon Language and Literature, 33 

taken from the account given to King Alfred by 
Ohthere, one of his Norse subjects, and inserted by 
the former into his translation of the History of 
Paulus Orosius, a Spanish priest of the fifth century. 
In the interlinear gloss the modern forms of the 
Anglo-Saxon words are, when not used, placed in 
parentheses: and some of the words not found or 
implied in the Anglo-Saxon, but employed in the 
gloss, are placed in brackets. 

Ohthere saede his hlaforde, ^Ifrede cyninge, "Saet 

Ohthere said to his lord, King Alfred, that 

he ealra Nor^monna norSmest bude. He cwae^ ^aet 

he of all Northmen northmost dwelt. He said (quoth) that 

he bude on ^sem lande nor^weardum wiS ^a West-sse. 

he dwelt in the land northward along (with) the West-sea. 

He saede, ^eah, "Sset ^aet land sie swi^e lang nor^ ^onan ; 

He said, though, that that land is very long north thence; 

ac hit is eall weste, buton on f eawum stowum styccemsel- 

but it is all waste, except (but) in a few places, [where] here and 

um wicia^ Finnas, on hunto'Se on wintra, ond on sumera 

there dwell Finns, for (in) hunting in winter, and in summer 

on fisca^e be ^^re s^. He s^de ^set he, aet sumum 

for (in) fishing along (by) that sea. He said that he, at a certain (some) 

cirre, wolde fandian hu longe -Saet land 

time, wished (would) to find out by trial how long the land 

norSryhte laege ; ot5(5e hwse^er ^nig monn be norcSan 

due north lay ; or whether any man north of 

^eem westenne bude. pa for he nor^ryhte be ^sem 

the waste dwelt. Then went (fared) he due north along (by) the 

lande : let him ealne weg "Sset weste land on "Saet 

land: [he] left all [the] way the waste land on the 

steorbord, ond 6a widsae on 6aet baecbord, prie dagas. 

starboard, and the wide-sea on the larboard three days. 



34 English Language, 

psi waes he swa feor nor^ swa Sa hwaelhuntan firrest 

Then was he so far north as the whale-hunters farthest 

fara'S. pa for he ^Sagiet norSryhte, swa feor 

go (fare). Then went (fared) he still (then yet) due north, so far 

swa he meahte on S^m oSrum j^rim dagum gesiglan. 

as he might in the second (other) three days sail. 

It will be observed that in the extract just given 
two letters occur which are no longer in use. Here, 
therefore, it will be desirable to give a brief account 
of the relation of the Anglo-Saxon to the Modern 
English alphabet. The characters used by the Teu- 
tonic tribes, when they first came over, were Runes. 
After their conversion to Christianity, they abandoned 
these for the Roman alphabet, as its letters had been 
modified by the Britons. To this alphabet they added 
two Runes. One of them was p, which hardly lasted 
beyond the Anglo-Saxon period. Its place was early 
taken by the doubled ^, and these two united form 
the letter w. The other Runic letter was ]\ This 
probably indicated the two sounds of //? seen in f/iin 
and f/ien, breath and breathe. There was another 
letter also, which in its origin is nothing but a crossed 
d^ and is represented by the form ^. In its use, it 
seems to be a variant of f, and indicated the same 
sounds. 

Both of these characters are represented in Modern 
English by the digraph th. They went largely out of 
use in the fifteenth century, and after the introduction 
of printing were universally abandoned. But the 
close resemblance in writing of A the so-called thorn- 



Anglo Saxon Language and Literature, 35 

letter, to ji; renders it frequently difficult to distinguish 
the one from the other in the manuscripts. Later the 
two came to be practically similar, and not only in 
sarly writing but in early printing the, that, and a few 
other words appeared in the form of abbreviations 
/, y, and the like. In j<f, which in the sense of Hhe' 
is still occasionally found in imitations or supposed 
imitations of the archaic style, the y really represents 
the Anglo-Saxon Rune p, and is properly pronounced 
as th. 

As compared with the present English alphabet, 
the Anglo-Saxon presents certain other variations. 
There is no distinct form f ory from / ; and though k, 
q, and z occur at times in the manuscripts, they did 
not represent sounds then, any more than now, which 
were not already represented by other letters, or by 
combinations of letters. The use of k for c became 
much more common after the Conquest. Another 
character, j, in common use during the Old and 
Middle English periods, was, in its origin, the Roman 
g as modified by the British scribes. It represents 
the modern ^ or ^ at the beginning of a word, and 
gh at the end, asj<?, 'ye,'j^z^^, ^give, ' and inouj, 
'enough.' This character disappeared also after the 
introduction of printing. During the middle ages 
the letters of the Roman alphabet were changed into 
a variety of forms by the ingenuity of the monastic 
scribes; and the peculiar modification of this alpha- 
bet used in England is called black-letter. During 
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries books were reg- 



36 English Laiigiiage. 

ularly printed in black-letter; but, in the first half 
of the seventeenth century, it was generally given 
up for the clearer, original Roman characters from 
which it had been taken. 



CHAPTER III. 

INFLUENCE OF FOREIGN TONGUES UPON THE 
ENGLISH OF THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD. 

Down to the time of the Norman Conquest the 
Anglo-Saxon form of the English language remained 
essentially the same. The grammatical modifications, 
in particular, that it underwent, were comparatively 
few in number, and slight in importance. Some 
inflections were lost. Cases of nouns, adjectives, 
and pronouns, which originally possessed different 
endings, came to have the same. The tendency of 
verbs of the strong conjugation to pass over to the 
weak^ began even thus early to show itself. Still 
none of these changes were violent or extensive : all 
of them took place in accordance with the natural 
law of development. But during this period the lan- 
guage came into contact with three other tongues, 
which to some extent affected the vocabulary, and 
perhaps, also, the form of expression. These were, 
first, the speech of the native Celtic inhabitants; 
secondly, the Latin; and, thirdly, the Norse. Of 

1 See pages 153, 154. 
SI 



38 English Language. 

these, Latin was the only one which at that time 
added any appreciable number of words to the lan- 
guage of literature. Terms from the Celtic or the 
Norse may have been adopted into the colloquial 
speech; but it was not until the break-up of the 
classic Anglo-Saxon, which followed the Norman 
Conquest, that they occur to any extent in writing. 

Celtic. — The native inhabitants found by the Teu- 
tonic invaders in the part of Britain they overran 
belonged to the Cymric branch of the Celtic stock. 
As the conquest v/as the work of several hundred years, 
it might be supposed that the vocabulary of each 
people would have received large accessions from that 
of the other. Such, however, was not the case. 
Very few Celtic terms are found in Anglo-Saxon lit- 
erature; and not many, indeed, appear to have made 
their way into written English in the centuries imme- 
diately following the coming of the Norman-French. 
This was largely due to the little intercourse that pre- 
vailed between the two races and the feelings of hatred 
developed by long years of war. The fact that the 
native inhabitants were Christians, and the invaders 
heathen, tended also to widen the breach between 
them; but, even after the conversion of the Anglo- 
Saxons, religious differences came in to impart addi- 
tional bitterness to the hostility that sprang from 
political and military conflicts. Bede, writing in the 
earlier half of the eighth century, says, that in his day 
it was not the custom of the Britons to pay any respect 
to the faith and religion of the English, or to corre- 



Celtic Element in Ejiglish. 39 

spond with them any more than with pagans. In 
consequence, very f^w of the Celtic words in our 
speech go back to a very early date. Certainly the 
modern importations from that quarter far exceed in 
number the earlier ones. Moreover, they have gen- 
erally come to us from the Gadhelic branch, and not 
from the Cymric^: and in most cases they denote 
objects peculiar, or originally peculiar, to the race by 
which they were first employed. The words bard, 
brogue, ' shoe, ' claymore, druid, plaid, shamrock, 
whiskey, for illustration, ate all of Celtic origin; but 
none of them existed in the English of the Anglo- 
Saxon period, and most of them are of comparatively 
recent introduction. 

It is natural that Celtic names of places should 
be much more common, and of these many continue 
to exist in the speech of to-day. The Celtic avon, 
meaning ^ river, ^ and esk, meaning Svater, ' are still 
found as the appellation of several streams of Great 
Britain. The Cymric pen and the Gadhelic be?i, both 
meaning 'head, ' and hence a 'peak,' occur with a 
good deal of frequency as part of the names of moun- 
tains. Numerous other Celtic words can be detected 
in place-names, such, for instance, as strath, 'a broad 
valley,' in Strathclyde, tre, 'a village,' in Tredegar, 
and probably lin, 'a deep pool,' in Lincoln. Names 
of persons are, as might be expected, even more nu- 
merous than names of places. There is an old English 
saying which runs as follows : — 
1 See page 5. 



40 English Language. 

By Tre, Ros,i Pol,2 Lan,^ Caer,* and Pen 
You know the most of Cornish men. 

These prefixes and several others are still numerous 
in proper names. 

It is to be added, that the influence of Celtic upon 
English has never been made until lately the subject 
of scientific investigation; and even now the work of 
determining the degree to which it has affected the 
vocabulary is far from having been completed. Ex- 
travagant claims have been and are still put forth as 
to the extent of this element in our tongue. In par- 
ticular, long lists of English words have been often 
given as derived from Celtic ones more or less resem- 
bling them. These lists are, as a general rule, utterly 
untrustworthy. In many instances there is no relation- 
ship whatever between the w^ords compared; in other 
instances the relationship is due to the fact that the 
same word has come down from the primitive Indo- 
European to both the Celtic and Teutonic branches; 
and in other instances still, where there has been act- 
ual borrowing, it is the Celtic tongues that have bor- 
rowed from the English, and not the English from 
the Celtic. At best, the influence of the languages 
of this stock upon our speech has been slight. 

Latin. — Far greater, even as regards Anglo-Saxon, 
was the influence of the Latin. This first manifested 
itself in the seventh century, and was due, like most 

1 Cymric rhos, a moor ; Gaelic ros, a headland. 

2 A marsh, pool. 3 An enclosure, xhurch. 
4 A cairn; or from Lat. castra, a camp. 



Latin Element in Anglo-Saxon. 41 

other changes in the vocabulary, to the operation of 
causes not in themselves of a linguistic nature. In 
the year 597 a band of Roman missionaries, sent by 
Pope Gregory I., came, under the leadership of 
Augustine, to the kingdom of Kent, with the object 
of converting the people. Their efforts were suc- 
cessful; and by the end of the following century all 
of the Teutonic inhabitants of Britain had gone over 
from heathenism to the Christian faith. One imme- 
diate consequence was to bring into prominence and 
power in the country a body of ecclesiastics who not 
only carried on the church-service in Latin, but 
were in the habit of using that language largely in 
conversation and in writing. For the first time in 
its history, Teutonic Britain was brought into con- 
tact with the superior literature and civilization of 
the Continent. The inevitable result was to intro- 
duce into the Anglo-Saxon a number of words taken 
from the Latin. At first these were naturally con- 
nected with the church-service, or with ecclesiastical 
proceedings; but, as time went on, a variety of terms 
came in, denoting objects in no way connected with 
religion. 

As the influence of Celtic in this early period has 
been overrated by many, that of Latin has been 
underrated by most. The words borrowed from it 
were not only considerable in number, they were, to 
a great extent, thoroughly assimilated. This is made 
manifest by the following facts. First, from the 
Latin nouns introduced, new adjectives and verbs and 



42 English Language. 

adverbs were formed by the addition of Teutonic end- 
ings; as from plante, ^ plant ' ( Lat. planta)^ was 
formed the verb plantian^ 'to plant'; from regol, 
'rule ' (from Lat. regulci)^ were formed the adjective 
regollic, 'rule-like,' 'regular,' and the adverb regollice^ 
'regularly.' Secondly, the new words were used with 
perfect freedom to form compounds with the native 
ones; as, for instance, biscop^ 'bishop' (Lat. episco- 
pics), enters into composition with nearly a dozen 
Anglo-Saxon nouns, of which list bis cop-rice, 'bishop- 
ric,'- — the only one which has come down to the 
modern tongue, — will serve as an illustration. 

In truth, the results that take place now when 
words from one tongue are brought in large numbers 
into another can be found exemplified in the influ- 
ence of Latin upon the English of this early period. 
Some of the native words began to disappear entirely. 
Thus, fefor, 'fever' (from Lat.y^^m), drove out hride, 
the original word denoting that disease. Again, 
the borrowed and the native words would frequently 
stand side by side. Thus, in King Alfred's writings, 
as well as later ones, munt, 'mount' (from Lat. mons, 
??to7it-is), is used interchangeably with dim, the pres- 
ent 'down,' and beo7g, seen in our 'iceberg.' Before 
the Norman Conquest six hundred words at least had 
been introduced from Latin into the Anglo-Saxon. 
Some of them occur but once or tv/ice in the litera- 
ture handed down, others are met with frequently. 
Were we to include in this list of borrowed terms the 
compoiyids into which the borrowed terms enter, the 



Scandinavian Element in English. 43 

whole number would be swelled to three or four times 
that above given. It is also to be marked, that not 
only were nouns directly borrowed, but also adjec- 
tives and verbs, though to a far less extent. The 
words that came into Anglo-Saxon from the seventh 
century on constitute the first real introduction of the 
Latin element into our tongue; but, in accordance 
with the terminology generally adopted, it is styled 
"Latin of the Second Period." 

Scandinavian. — The extent of this Latin influence 
upon Anglo-Saxon is something that is capable of 
pretty definite determination; but such is not the 
case with the Scandinavian element that comes now 
to be considered. The descendants of the Teutonic 
invaders, not much more than a century after their 
conversion to Christianity, were to suffer the same 
evils that had been inflicted by their own heathen 
free-booting forefathers upon the original Celtic 
population. Under the year 787 the Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle states, that in the days of Bertric, King of 
Wessex, three shiploads of Northmen landed upon 
the coast of Britain, and .slew the officers who went 
out to meet them with the intent of taking them 
prisoners. "These," it continues, "were the first 
ships of Danish men who sought the land of the Eng- 
lish race." This event marks the beginning of a 
steadily increasing series of marauding descents upon 
the seaboard, and inroads into the interior. These 
culminated, in the latter part of the ninth century, in 
the devastation or subjection of nearly all the Anglo- 



44 English Language, 

Saxon territory, and the permanent settlement of a 
large part of it. East Anglia was conquered in 870, 
and became and thenceforward remained a Danish 
kingdom. The invaders also overran or subdued the 
greater portion of what is now Northern and Eastern 
England. Their attempts upon Wessex, however, 
were checked effectually at last by the defeat they re- 
ceived in 878 from King Alfred at a place designated 
in the Chronicle as Ethandun, which is generally 
considered to be Edington in Wiltshire. This was 
followed by the Peace of Wedmore. According to 
the tejms of this treaty, the whole country was divided 
between the two nations; the Danes on their part 
agreeing to adopt the Christian faith. 

Even after this, incursions did not cease to be 
made, though they were on a comparatively small 
scale.. Frequent wars went on, however, between 
the English and the Danes settled in England. 
Finally, toward the close of the tenth century the 
invasion was renewed on a grander scale. It ended 
in establishing upon the English throne, from 1013 to 
1042, a Danish dynasty, to which belonged Sweyn, 
Canute, Harold Harefoot, and Hardicanute. But in 
every case the new-comers seem to have made no 
effort to keep up their own tongue, but adopted the 
speech of the people among whom they had fixed 
their homes. The Scandinavian settlements are, for 
the most part, limited to East Anglia (Norfolk and 
Suffolk), to Lincolnshire and the neighboring coun- 
ties on the west, to Yorkshire, Lancashire, Westmore- 



Scandinavian Element in English, 45 

land, and Cumberland. Their existence is generally 
conceded to be indicated by various names of towns. 
Among the more common of these are those ending 
in -by (Old Norse byr^ a ^dwelling,' ^village'), in 
-thorp or -torp (O. N. porp^ a ^hamlet/ * village'), 
in -toft (O. N. toft, ^a homestead,' * enclosure'), and 
in -thwaite (O. N. pveiti, a ^clearing'). Examples 
can be seen in Whitby, Althorp, Lowestoft, and 
Bra i thwaite. 

There was, accordingly, no slight infusion of the 
Scandinavian element in the population that inhabited 
Britain. But the extent of Scandinavian influence 
upon the language is difficult to ascertain. This is 
due to the fact that the Old Norse and the Anglo- 
Saxon are both Teutonic tongues. As they both de- 
scended from a common ancestor, it was natural that 
a large number of words should be the same, or 
nearly the same, in both. Furthermore, it is not 
conceivable that all the vocabulary possessed by either 
has been handed down in the literature of each that 
has been saved. When, therefore, a word occurs in 
Modern English which is not found in Anglo-Saxon, 
or any other Low German tongue, but is found in Old 
Norse, we can say that there is every probability that 
it came from the latter. Still we cannot say this with 
certainty, for it may have existed in the former, and 
not have been preserved. 

There is, moreover, a special difficulty in this ques- 
tion, from the fact that it was in the Anglian king- 
doms that these foreign settlements were made. But 



4-6 English Language, 

the existing remains of Northumbrian speech, which 
is an Anglian dialect of the Anglo-Saxon, show 
plainly that this dialect was much more closely allied 
to the Old Norse than is the West-Saxon, which is a 
Saxon dialect of Anglo-Saxon. In the last-named 
the infinitive of the verb, for illustration, regularly 
ends in -an. In the other two the -n is dropped. In 
West-Saxon ^to tell' is tellan ; in Northumbrian it is 
tella ; in Norse it h-telia. It is, therefore, quite 
conceivable, though it may not be very probable, that 
words and forms which we ascribe to the Scandina- 
vian element may, in fact, have not come from it, but 
from the speech of the Anglian population; for we 
have no such extensive vocabulary of the Northum- 
brian dialect as we have of the West-Saxon. 

Still there is no doubt that a large number of Norse 
words were introduced at this time into the spoken 
tongue. Many of these have spread beyond their . 
original limits, and linger to this day in the local 
dialects of Northern England and Southern Scotland. 
In these dialects, indeed, this foreign element is far 
more conspicuous than in the language of literature. 
Still, in regard to the latter also, it is reasonable to 
suppose that both Norse words, and ' Norse meanings 
of words, in many cases, have supplanted those, 
which, up to the time of its introduction, had been 
the prevailing or exclusive ones in Anglo-Saxon. 
For illustration, sindon was the ordinary form for 
the plural of the present tense of the verb be : its 
place is now supplied by are, the original of which 



Scandinavian Element in English. 47 

is rare in Anglo-Saxon, but the regular form in the 
Norse. So from the Norse kalla we seem to get 
our verb call; for in Anglo-Saxon the corresponding 
word is clipian^ 'to clepe.' Again, the word dream 
is common to both tongues; but in Anglo-Saxon it 
means 'joy,' 'music' ;_ and it is from the Norse that 
we have taken the modern signification. Still it was 
not till the break-up of the native speech, that fol- 
lowed upon the Norman Conquest, that Norse words 
came to be used to any extent in the language of lit- 
erature. 



CHAPTER -IV. 

THE NORMAN CONQUEST AND THE FRENCH 
LANGUAGE IN ENGLAND. 

Up to the middle of the eleventh century the influ- 
ences that had been at work upon the language had 
not been productive of great changes ; still less were 
they revolutionary in their nature. The Norsemen for 
a time brought ruin everywhere ; but whether they 
desolated temporarily, or settled permanently, they 
did not anywhere materially disturb the native speech 
as an instrument of communication, or affect in the 
slightest its literary supremacy. Even during the time 
their kings ruled the country, they seem not to have 
made any effort to introduce into it the use of their own 
tongue. But a series of events was now to take place 
which completely changed the future political history 
of the English people ; and it was attended by as pro- 
found and wide -reaching a change in the character of 
English speech. In the latter half of the eleventh 
century came the Norman Conquest and the introduc- 
tion into the island of the French as the language of 
the higher classes. 

The most powerful effects upon the native tongue 



The Nor7nan' French. 49 

produced by these two agencies did not fully show 
themselves until three centuries had passed ; but 
a very early and almost immediate effect wrought 
upon it was to throw it into a state of confusion. The 
English of the Anglo-Saxon period sank at once from 
its position as the language of culture, whatever that 
culture was. When, in the fourteenth century, it once 
more reappears as the language of a classic literature, 
it is a language and literature widely different from 
that which had been supplanted or degraded by the 
coming of a stranger race. From the Norman Conquest 
on, the native speech no longer followed the natural 
law of development which it would have followed as a 
pure Teutonic tongue. To explain the nature of the 
changes that were wrought in it, it will be necessary to 
give some account of the men whose coming caused 
them, and of the relations which for a long time existed 
on English soil between the French and English 
languages. 

The Norman-French. — Tow^ard the close of the 
ninth century a band of Northmen, under a renowned 
leader named Rolf, or Rollo, sailed up the Seine, cap- 
tured Rouen, and, from that point as a centre, carried 
on a continuous and destructive war with the native 
inhabitants. At last, in 912, peace was made. To the 
invaders, Charles the Simple, the king of the French, 
ceded a large territory bordering upon the British 
Channel, which was called from them Normandy. On 
the other hand, Rollo agreed to become the feudal 
vassal of the French monarch, and to embrace the 



50 English Language, 

Christian religion. These conditions were fully carried 
into effect. The Norsemen, in consequence, became 
the undisturbed owners of the district given up to 
them, and, along with the religion of their subjects, 
they also adopted their language. 

The Korman Conquest. — The relations between the 
English and the Norman-French courts began to 
assume about the beginning of the eleventh century a 
somewhat close character by the marriage, in 1002, of 
the Anglo-Saxon king, Ethelred IL, to Emma, sister 
of Richard III., the fifth duke of Normandy. One of 
the children of this union was a son, Edward, who is 
usually styled the Confessor. He reigned over Eng- 
land from 1043 to 1066. But the early years of this 
prince were spent at the court of his uncles Richard 
and Robert, dukes of Normandy ; and when, after the 
termination of the Danish dynasty in 1042, he was 
recalled to his native country, and placed upon the 
throne, he continued to retain a preference for the 
friends and the tastes of his youth. Norman- French 
noblemen were assigned positions of responsibility and 
power; Norman-French priests were made English 
bishops. It is true, a revolution in 1052 drove out 
most of the foreign favorites ; but the foreign influ- 
ence could not have passed away utterly. Early in 
1066 Edward the Confessor died; and Harold, the 
most powerful nobleman in the kingdom, was chosen 
king in his stead. A claim to the throne was immedi- 
ately made, however, by WilHam, Duke of Normandy, 
a cousin of the deceased monarch. To support it, he 



The Norman Conquest, 51 

invaded England in the autumn of the same year; 
and the battle of Hastings, fought on the 14th of 
October, 1066, resulted in the defeat and death of 
Harold and the subjection of the whole country. 

Effect of the Conquest upon the Native Language. — 
Two general facts in regard to language become ap- 
parent as the effect of the Conquest. One is, thai, 
though the native tongue continued to be spoken by 
the great majority of the population, it went out of 
use as the language of high culture. It was no longer 
taught in the schools. It was no longer employed at 
the court of the king, or the castles of the nobles. It 
was no longer used in judicial proceedings ; to some 
extent even it ceased to be recognized in the services 
of the church. This displacement was probably slow 
at first ; but it was done effectually at last. The second 
fact is, that, after the Conquest, the educated classes, 
whether lay or ecclesiastical, preferred to write either 
in Latin or in French ; the latter steadily tending to 
become more and more the language of literature as 
well as of pohte society. We have, in consequence, 
the singular spectacle of two tongues flourishing side 
by side in the same country, and yet for centuries so 
utterly 'distinct and independent, that neither can be 
said to have exerted much direct appreciable influence 
upon the other, though in each case the indirect in- 
fluence was great. 

To understand the relations between these two 
tongues involves an acquaintance with the relations 
existing between the two races that spoke them ; and 



52 English Langtcage. 

in both cases the knowledge we have, especially of the 
earlier period, is obscure. Our information, indeed^ 
in regard to our speech, is based almost exclusively 
upon incidental notices contained in the Latin 
chronicles written in the twelfth century and in the 
beginning of the thirteenth. In these the subject of 
language is rarely treated of specifically, and never 
at any length. Accordingly, the inferences that are 
drawn can be looked upon only as probable, and not 
as certain. From the latter part of the thirteenth cen- 
tury on, the native tongue is more an object of con- 
sideration in itself, and our knowledge of the relations 
between French and EngHsh becomes much more 
positive and precise. A few of the more important 
statements will be quoted ; but in every case it is 
necessary to bear in mind, not only what was said, 
but when it was said. 

The estimate entertained of the language would in- 
evitably be affected by the estimate entertained of the 
people who spoke it. It was natural that a contempt- 
uous feeling should exist at first on the part of the con- 
querors towards the conquered. Though little evidence 
has been handed down, such certainly seems to have 
been the case. One early authority on this point has 
now indeed been set aside. Up to a comparatively late 
period, the History which purported to be written by 
Ingulph, appointed Abbot of Croyland in 1076, was re- 
garded as authentic, and its statements were implicitly 
credited. In this work it was asserted, that, after the 
accession of William, the English race was held '^ 



The Norman Conquest. 53 

contempt and detestation ; that the Normans so ab- 
horred the language, that the laws of the land and the 
decrees of the king were put into Latin ; and that in 
the schools the elements of grammar were imparted 
in French. Though this History was professedly 
the production of a contemporary of the Conqueror, 
there is no doubt that much, if not all, of it, was a 
forgery of the fourteenth century. Its statements, 
therefore, are of no weight as belonging to the 
period in which the work purports to have been 
written. Yet a certain value may be fairly deemed to 
attach to them, as embodying the opinion which had 
become currently accepted in later times as to the 
views that then were supposed to have prevailed after 
the Conquest about the English race and language. 

Still there is direct evidence that contempt was both 
felt and expressed by the foreigners for the native 
population. Henry of Huntingdon, who flourished in 
the former half of the twelfth century, in speaking of 
the state of the country at the death of William the 
Conqueror, asserted that it was a disgrace to be even 
called an Englishman. This is a state of feeling that 
would of necessity pass away rapidly with the descend- 
ants of the conquerors, who had made England their 
permanent home ; but it would as certainly continue 
to exist with those subjects of the English king who 
belonged by birth and family ties to the Continent. 
Evidence of the prevalence of this sentiment on their 
part can be found late in the twelfth century. WilHam 
de Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, was left as guardian 



54 English Language, 

of the realm by Richard I. (1189-1199), when setting 
out on his crusade. This minister is asserted to have 
felt and expressed the utmost contempt for the people 
he was called upon to govern. He was utterly igno- 
rant of the EngHsh tongue. He so despised the race 
which spoke it that usual forms of imprecation were 
such as these : '^ May I become an EngHshman if I 
do this ! " "I were worse than an Englishman were 
I to consent to this." 

Feelings of this kind would be certain to exteniJ to 
the language. Still there is no evidence that any at- 
tempt was made at any time to prevent the employment 
or check the growth of the popular speech. In truth, 
the ecclesiastical historian, Ordericus Vitalis (1075- 
1144)5 tells us, that William the Conqueror strove to 
make himself acquainted with it, so as to deal with his 
subjects without the aid of an interpreter ; and his lack 
of success was not due to indifference, but to advancing 
age and want of leisure. It is indeed the belief of 
many that his son, Henry I., who reigned from 11 00 
to 1 135, made himself master of the English language. 
But if he did, it is not likely that his example found 
many imitators. The tongue of the common people 
was, in truth, in the eyes of the Norman a barbarous 
one. He made not the slightest attempt to destroy 
it : he contented himself with simply despising it. To 
him it was the rude speech of a rude people which 
had been subjected to the sway of a superior race. 

French and English Languages on English Soil. — 
English, indeed, after the Conquest, did not cease to 



French and English in England. 55 

be a written language : it did cease to be a cultivated 
one. None of those conservative influences were cast 
about it which are sure to prevent rapid and radical 
changes in any tongue that is regularly employed by 
the educated. But the great body of the people 
clung to it. They were ignc rant, and they corrupted 
it; but, as they could not or would not learn the 
language of the higher classes, they preserved it. 
While French, therefore, continued to remain for 
centuries the tongue employed in polite conversation ; 
while it and Latin were the ones mainly employed in 
literature, the native speech could not and did not 
fail, as time went on, to make its influence more and- 
more felt by the mere weight of numbers on the part 
of those using it. 

It has been an assertion frequently made that the 
nobility did not learn to speak EngHsh till the four- 
teenth century. The statement may be true to this 
extent, that the subjects of the English king who 
were born and brought up on the Continent, and 
spent there much of their lives, never learned to 
speak it at all. But it is against all probability that 
those members of the higher classes who were natives 
of the island, whose interests mainly lay there, whose 
lives were largely passed there, should not have been 
able to understand and make use of the speech of the 
great body of the common people with whom they 
came into daily contact. From the very first, necessity 
would have forced them at times to employ English, 
even if French were the language of their choice. 



S6 English Language. 

There is indeed ample reason to believe that by the 
end of the thirteenth century English had become the 
mother-tongue of the children of the nobihty dwelling 
in England, and that it was through the medium of it 
they acquired largely their knowledge of French. 
Several copies of a widely circulated text-book then 
prepared for their instruction in the latter language are 
still in existence.-^ It contains French sentences, with 
an interlinear translation in English. This certainly 
indicates that the child learned invariably the native 
speech in infancy, and was then made to acquire 
the speech which in after life he was to use mainly. 
Though this text-book belongs to the close of the thir- 
teenth century, other incidental references suggest 
that the custom it implies was probably older. One 
of the chief reasons, for instance, of the unpopu- 
larity of Henry III. (1214-1272) was the favor shown 
by him to noblemen who came from the Continent, 
and who would naturally have Httle knowledge of 
purely English customs and little sympathy with Eng- 
lish feelings. This was one of the grievances that 
added bitterness to the civil war between the king 
and the barons. In giving an account of the events 
of 1263, one of the writers of the Chronicle, miscalled 
Matthew of Westminster's, states that whoever was 
unable to speak the English language was regarded 
by the common people as a vile and contemptible 

1 It was the work of Walter de Biblesworth, and is contained in 
Thomas Wright's collection of " Anglo-Saxon and Old English 
Vocabularies," ist ed. 



French and English in England. 57 

person. If this assertion be true, there is no escape 
from the legitimate inference that those members of 
the nobiUty whose homes were in the island must have 
been familiar with the native speech. 

It is easy to see, however, that agencies were at 
work that tended continually to bring the native 
tongue into disrepute. These were especially active 
after the accession of the Angevin dynasty. The 
French language was not only the speech of the 
higher classes in the island, but it was also the speech 
of a large number of subjects of the EngHsh ruler 
whose homes were on the Continent. Henry II., who 
reigned from 1154 to 1189, was the immediate lord 
of several French provinces, so that his possessions in 
that country exceeded in extent the territory under 
the direct control of the king of France himself. 
With the inhabitants of these the dominant race in 
England was closely allied in blood and sympathy. 
The French was likewise a language which had already 
begun to develop a literature of some interest and 
value. It had before it a promising future. It is 
evident that an uncultivated tongue like the EngHsh 
was at an immense disadvantage as compared with 
a cultivated one existing alongside of it. Even the 
island itself was, to a great degree, simply looked 
upon as a storehouse of men and materials, from 
which its kings could draw supplies to prosecute their 
designs of conquest upon the Continent ; and the lan- 
guage itself could not hope to be rated at as high 
a value as the country in which it was the speech of 



58 English Language, 

the lower classes only. It is therefore not surprising 
that for a time there should be not only a continued, 
but, within certain limits, an increasing use of the 
French upon the soil of Great Britain. 

Had, indeed, the English monarchs continued to 
retain their possessions in France, it is safe to say that 
the EngHsh tongue would never have become the 
vehicle of a great literature. But during the thirteenth 
century events occurred that changed this condition of 
things. The French provinces that had been directly 
under the sway of the English monarchs gradually 
passed out of their hands ; and the various efforts 
made then and subsequently to regain them were 
never permanently successful. In particular, Nor- 
mandy, their great ancestral fief, was lost in 1204, 
during the reign of John. This had the inevitable 
effect of largely transferring the interests of the no- 
bility from the Continent to the island. Henceforth 
their lot was to be cast amid the English-speaking 
race that dwelt upon the estates held by them in 
England. 

In consequence of the loss of the English possessions 
in France, feelings of hostility were certain to arise 
between the people of the island and of the Continent. 
The breach between them was still further widened 
by the action taken in 1244 by the French king, Louis 
IX. In that year he sum.moned to Paris all the no- 
bility of England who had possessions in France, and 
gave them their choice of relinquishing their property 
in the one country or the other. This he did on the 



Fre7ich and English in England, 59 

manifest ground that it was impossible for the same 
man to be the faithful subject of two rulers, always in 
rivalry, and often in hostility. They were, accord- 
ingly, required to give up one or the other. As soon 
as the knowledge of this transaction came to the ears 
of the English king, he at once ordered that all French- 
men, especially Normans, who had possessions in Eng- 
land, should have their property confiscated. 

The first effect of these political changes was, there- 
fore, to cause the EngHsh and the French to look 
upon each other more and more as different peoples. 
A second and more important result was to hasten 
the union between the Enghsh of native and of foreign 
descent, and to wipe out distinctions of any kind 
heretofore existing between them. Yet it is clear 
that there could never be a complete union without 
the adoption of a common language ; and this had 
not taken place at the end of the thirteenth century. 
It could not, indeed, take place as long as French was 
regarded as the language of culture and of literature, 
and the use of it indicative of social position. The 
children of the nobiHty and gentry might, and doubt- 
less did, learn English in their infancy. But, though 
familiar with it, and employing it with their inferiors, 
it was not the tongue they spoke in their intercourse 
among themselves. 

On this point, we have the direct and unimpeacha- 
ble testimony of contemporary writers. One of these 
belongs to the very close of the thirteenth century. It 
is an observation made then by the composer of the 



6o English Langttage. 

rhymed chronicle which has commonly gone under 
the name of Robert of Gloucester's. In giving an 
account of the conquest of England by WilHam, he is 
led to speak of the two languages still existing in the 
country side by side. This he does in the following 
words : — 

pus com, lo ! Engelond into Normandies hond. 

And >e Normans ne coube speke \)0 bote hor owe speche, 

And speke French as hii dude atom, and hor children dude also 

teche. 
So }?at heiemen of Ms lond, bat of hor blod come, 
HoldeJ? alle }?ulke speche \>2X hii of hom nome. 
Vor bote a man conne Frenss, me tel}? of him lute ; 
Ac lowe men holdej? to Engliss and to hor owe speche 3ute. 
Ich wene )?er ne be}? in al l^e world contreyes none 
pat ne holdel? to hor owe speche bote Engelond one.^ 

From this it is evident that, about 1300, French 
was still the language of the higher classes, and that 
to be ignorant of it was in a measure a social stigma. 
Nor did this feeling speedily die out. In the earHer 
half of the fourteenth century flourished Ralph Hig- 
don, a monk of St. Werburgh's in Chester. He 

1 Lo ! thus came England into the possession of Normandy. 
And the Normans could then speak only their own speech, 
And spoke French as they did at home, and caused their children 

also to be taught it. 
So that noblemen of this land, that come of their blood, 
Hold all the same speech that they from them received. 
For unless a man knows French, he is little thought of; 
But low men keep to English, and to their own speech yet. 
I think there be not in all the world any countries 
That do not hold to their own speech, but England alone. 



French and English tjt England, 6i 

wrote in Latin a history of the world, under the title 
of '^ Polychronicon " ; and in it he gave an account of 
the languages spoken in England, and of the corrup- 
tion that had crept into the native speech. A transla- 
tion of this work was made in the same century by 
John of Trevisa, vicar of Berkeley. The passage 
explanatory of the corruption that had overtaken the 
tongue he rendered in the following words : — 

pis apeyryng of the bur>-tonge ys bycause of twey Hnges : 
— on ys, for chyldern in scole, a3enes the vsage and manere of 
al o\>tx nacions, bu> compelled for to leue here oune longage, 
and for to construe here lessons and here thinges a Freynsch, 
and habbe]?, suj^the the Normans come furst into Engelond. 
Also gentil men children buj? ytau3t for to speke Freynsch 
fram tyme ]?at a buj> yrokked in here cradel, and connel? 
speke, and playe wi)> a child hys brouch; and oplondysch men 
wol lykne ham-sylf to gentil men, and fonde)? with gret bysynes 
for to speke Freynsch, for to be more ytold of.i 

The words of Higden, as translated by Trevisa, bear 
out the inference previously drawn that the children 
of the higher classes first learned to speak Enghsh, 
but from their earliest years were sedulously con- 

1 This impairment of the birth-tongue is because of two things : 
one is, because children in school, against the usage and manner of 
all other nations, are compelled to leave their own language, and to 
construe their lessons and their matters in French, and have, since 
the Normans came first into England. Also, gentlemen's children 
are taught to speak French from (the) time that they are rocked in 
their cradle, and can speak, and play with a child's brooch ; and 
country men (or rustics) wish to make themselves like gentlemen, 
and strive with great earnestness to speak French, in order to be 
thought the more of. 



62 English Language. 

strained to abandon its employment among them.- 
selves, and to use French in its place. This was, 
however, a practice that under the conditions then 
existing could not long continue. There is evidence 
that it ha.d largely ceased before the middle of the 
fourteenth century. The author of the metrical ro- 
mance of '^Arthur and Merlin," which is believed to 
have been written during the minority of Edward III., 
speaks of the advantages derived from the study of 
Latin and French in the schools ; but he adds the fol- 
lowing : — 

Right is that Inglishe Inglishe understond, 

That was born in Inglond; 

Freynshe use this gentilman, 

Ac everich Inglishe can; 

Many noble I have yseighe^ 

That no Freynshe couthe seye.^ 

Here is a direct statement that French was unknown 
to many, while English was known to all ; and this was 
without doubt increasingly the case as we advance 
farther into the fourteenth century. 

In truth, by the middle of that century the move- 
ment towards the general adoption of the native speech 
had acquired a momentum which could no longer be 
resisted. From this period, signs of the general em- 

1 It is right that Englishmen understand English, 
Who were born in England ; 
These gentlemen use French, 
But every one knows English ; 
Many a nobleman I have seen 
Who could speak no French. 



French a7id English in Ejigland. 63 

ployment of English by all classes in the community 
begin to multiply. Traditions connected with educa- 
tion are among the last to lose their hold upon the 
mind : practices connected with it are among the last 
to be abandoned. But, in the latter half of the four- 
teenth century, instruction through the medium of 
the French had to a great extent been supplanted 
by instruction through the medium of the EngUsh. 
On this point we have positive testimony. Higden's 
account of the state of the language belongs to the 
earlier half of the fourteenth century. Trevisa's ver- 
sion of the " Polychronicon " was completed in 1387. 
In it he felt obhged to make a correction of the state- 
ment found in his original, which has just been given. 
This was rendered necessary by the changes that had 
taken place between the time the book was written 
and the time it was translated. 

Trevisa asserted, that, since the great pestilence of 
1349, called the Black Death, the system of instruc- 
tion had been revolutionized. Upon the remark of 
Higden that the children of the higher classes were 
taught French from their cradles, he made the follow- 
ing comment : — 

pys manere was moche yvsed tofore the furste moreyn, and 
ys seethe somdel ychaunged. For lohan Cornwal, a mayster of 
gramere, chayngede the lore in gramer-scole, and construccion of 
Freynsch into Englysch : and Richard Pencrych lurnede J^at 
manere techyng of hym, and o)?er men of Pencrych ; so ]?at 
now, the 3er of oure Lord a thpusond )?re hondred foure score 
and fyue, of >e secunde Kyng Richard after J?e conquest nyne, 
in al the gramer-scoles of Engelond children leue> Frensch 



64 English Language, 

and construe)) and lurnep an Englysch, and habbej? J^erby avaun- 
tage in on syde and desavauntage yn ano^er : here avauntage 
ys, that a lurne]? here gramer yn lasse tyme than childern wer 
ywoned to do; disavauntage ys, J?at now childern of gramer-scole 
connej? no more Frensch ))an can here Hft heele, and l?at ys 
harm for ham, and a scholle passe the se and trauayle in strange 
londes, and in meny caas also. Also gentil men habbej? now 
moche yleft for to teche here childern Frensch.^ 

. There is even more convincing evidence as to the 
general adoption of English by all classes than the 
change in the method of instruction in the schools. 
This can be found in the act in regard to the plead- 
ings in the law-courts, which was passed by the Parlia- 
ment held at Westminster in 1362, the thirty-sixth 
year of Edward III. The preamble recites in full 
the reasons which led to the making of the statute ; 
and, in spite of the verbiage usual in documents of 
this kind, most of it is well worthy of quotation. ^^ Be- 
cause it is often shewed to the king," it said, " by the 

1 This custom was much used before the first pestilence, and is 
since somewhat changed. For John Cornwall, a teacher of gram- 
mar, changed the method of instruction in the grammar-school, and 
(the) construing from French into English ; and Richard Pencrich 
learned from him that manner of teaching, and other men from Pen- 
crich : so that now, the year of our Lord a thousand three hundred 
four score and five, the ninth (year of the reign) of the second king 
Richard after the Conquest, in all the grammar-schools of England 
children give up French, and construe and learn in English, and 
have thereby advantage on one side, and disadvantage on another. 
Their advantage is, that they learn their grammar in less time than 
children were wont to do ; (the) disadvantage is, that now grammar- 
school children know no more French than their left heel knows : 
and that is harm for them, if they shall pass the sea and travel in 
strange lands, and in many (other) cases also. Also, gentlemen 
have now much left teaching their children French, 



French a7id English in England. 65 

prelates, dukes, earls, barons, and all the commonalty, 
of the great mischiefs which have happened to divers of 
the realm, because the laws, customs, and statutes 
of this realm be not commonly known in the same 
realm, for that they be pleaded, shewed, and judged 
in the French tongue, which is much unknown in the 
said realm : so that the people who do implead or be 
impleaded in the king's court, and in the courts of 
others, have no knowledge nor understanding of that 
which is said for them or against them by their Ser- 
jeants and other pleaders ; and that reasonably the 
said laws and customs shall be the sooner learned and 
known and better understood in the tongue used in 
the said realm, and by so much every man of the said 
realm may the better govern himself without offending 
of the law, and the better keep, save, and defend his 
heritage and possessions; and in divers regions and 
countries, where the king, the nobles, and others of 
the said realm have been, good governance and full 
right is done to every person, because that their laws 
and customs be learned and used in the tongue of the 
country : the king, desiring the good governance and 
tranquillity of his people, and to put out and eschew 
the harms and mischiefs, which do or may happen in 
this behalf by the occasions aforesaid, hath ordained 
and established by the assent aforesaid, that all pleas 
which shall be pleaded in his courts whatsoever, before 
any of his justices whatsoever, or in his other places, 
or before any of his other ministers whatsoever, or in 
the courts and places of any other lords whatsoever 



66 English Language, 

within the realm, shall be pleaded, shewed, de- 
fended, answered, debated, and judged in the English 
tongue." 

The law then enacted went into operation at the 
beginning of the following year. It is a natural infer- 
ence, from the half-measures attending this piece of 
legislation, that the English element had become pre- 
dominant, not only in the national speech, but in the 
national character. The preamble declared that the 
statutes, in order to be known and better understood, 
should be in the tongue used in the realm. But the 
act itself went no further than to declare that the 
proceedings in courts of justice must be in the native 
speech. The law was published in French, the very 
language it set out to proscribe : and, while it ordered 
that the pleadings should be in English, it went on to 
direct that they should be enrolled in Latin. 

There can be Httle doubt that the changes which 
were taking place were looked upon by many with 
much disfavor. The growing ignorance of a tongue 
which was coming to be more and more widely used 
throughout Christendom was regarded almost in the 
light of a calamity. Trevisa's remark, that the chil- 
dren in the grammar-schools knew "no more French 
than their left heel," was re-echoed in the alliterative 
poem of " Piers Plowman," by Langland, who, in the- 
ory at least, is supposed to represent the sentiments 
of the common people. In a passage inveighing 
against the general ignorance prevalent in his day, 
he says : — 



Rise of Modern English Literature. 67 

Gramer, the grounde of al, bigyleth now children; 
For is none of this newe clerkes, whoso nymeth hede, 
That can vefsifye faire, ne formalich enditen; 
Ne nou3t on amonge an hundreth, that an auctour can con- 
strue, 
Ne rede a lettre in any langage but in Latyn or in Englissh.i 

Rise of Modern English Literature. — It was the 

Norman Conquest that had primarily brought about 
the degradation of the native speech. It was to 
the loss of the English possessions in France that the 
steady rise in the estimation and general use of the 
English language was mainly due. This movement 
which political changes had begun, two other causes 
now came in to accelerate. The first of these was the 
creation of a native literature of a character which 
contributed of itself to give respect and dignity to the 
tongue in which it was written. The second was the 
variation, steadily widening, which showed itself be- 
tween the French spoken in the island and the French 
spoken on the Continent ; and this, from the nature 
oi things, could not but react upon the estimation in 
which the former was held. 

It was in the fourteenth century that the forces 
which give stability and credit to a language began 
first to operate powerfully upon the speech employed 

1 Grammar, the ground of all (studies) , now leads astray children ; 
For there is no one of these new clerks, whoso taketh heed. 
That can versify fairly,, or compose in a correct manner, 
And not one amongst an hundred that can construe an author, 
Nor read a letter in any language but in Latin or in English. 

— Passiis XV., B. text, lines 365-369. 



68 English Language, 

by the great body of the people. It was in the lat- 
ter half of that century that English literature, in the 
strict sense of the word literature, properly begins. 
Numerous works had, indeed, been written between 
the Conquest and this period ; but, with the excep- 
tion of some fev/ specimens of lyric poetry, there had 
been nothing produced, which, looked at from a 
purely literary point of view, had any reason to show 
for its existence. If known to the cultivated classes 
at all, it was probably treated with contempt ; for it 
was certainly contemptible in execution, whatever it 
may have been in design. The men who, during 
those centuries, wrote in English, seem to have done 
so in most cases because they had not the knowledge 
or the ability to write in Latin or in French. To a 
very large extent, their works were translations. Com- 
positions on dull subjects, and which themselves im- 
parted additional dulness to the subjects of which they 
treated, could not, and as an actual fact did not, have 
any influence worth speaking of on the development 
of the native speech. They are frequently of great 
value to us when looked at from certain points of 
view : they are records of new words and phrases 
that had come in, of grammatical changes that had 
taken place, of linguistic influences of every kind that 
had been and still were at work ; but upon the speech 
of the people of that time they exercised no percepti- 
ble influence. Both in language and in literature men 
imitate only what they admire ; and the works pro- 
duced in English for nearly three centuries following 



Rise of Modern English Literature. 69 

the Conquest could not, in the vast majority of in- 
stances, be admired. 

But in the latter half of the fourteenth century a 
number of eminent writers in the native spee.ch arose. 
Modern investigation has indeed deprived our litera- 
ture of one of the most noted of these early authors, 
with whom it has previously been credited. This was 
Sir John Mandeville, who was at one time frequently 
styled " the father of English prose." In the prologue 
to the account of travels that goes under his name, he 
is represented as saying that he first wrote the work 
in Latin, turned it from that tongue into French, and 
then from French into Enghsh. It is now established 
that the book is largely a compilation made up from 
the writings of previous travellers. It is fairly certain 
that it was originally written in French, and translated 
into English about the end of the fourteenth century. 
It is an open question, indeed, if the assumed author, 
Sir John Mandeville, had any existence at all. 

Other writers there were, however, at this period, 
who gave distinction to the language. About 1362, 
Langland executed the first version of his famous 
alliterative poem, " The Vision of Piers Plowman." 
Two later versions appeared, one about 1377, and the 
other about 1393. All three had a wide circulation. 
During the last quarter of the century, Gower, after 
composing works in Latin and in French, tried writing 
in English also, at the request, as he tells us, of King 
Richard II. He produced in this last-named tongue 
a poem of about thirty-two thousand lines, entitled 



70 English Language, 

" Confessio Amantis." But the two great authors of 
this time are WycUffe and Chaucer ; and their influ- 
ence upon the language cannot well be over-esti- 
mated. The translation of the Scriptures, completed 
about 1380 by the former and his disciples, and revised 
about 1390 by Purvey, was circulated far and wide. 
Its effect upon the development of the Enghsh speech 
has been permanent. To it we owe that peculiar 
religious dialect, alike remarkable for simplicity, for 
beauty, and for force, which we see preserved still in 
our authorized version of the Bible, and which renders 
the prose of that work distinct from every other exist- 
ing form of English prose. 

Wychffe brought out several other treatises in the 
native speech, all of them in prose. Yet though these 
are effectively written, it is only through this transla- 
tion of the Bible that he can be said to have exerted 
a lasting influence upon our tongue. What he did 
for the language of rehgion, Chaucer did for the lan- 
guage of literature. In his works, especially in the 
^^ Canterbury Tales," men for the first time had great 
models in the native speech ; and the dialect in which 
he wrote became the one universally employed in lit- 
erature, largely in consequence of his writing in it. 
His genius it was that gave dignity to the speech in 
which it found manifestation. His influence was the 
more powerful because his choice of the native tongue 
was not due to his ignorance of French or of Latin, 
nor to a desire to reach the lowest class of the people 
as well as the highest, but was a course deliberately 



Rise of Modem English LiteraUtre. 71 

adopted under the conviction that the English lan- 
guage was the only one in which Englishmen had any 
business to write. 

It is clear, indeed, that, not only then but even much 
later there was great, doubt as to the future of the 
native speech. Gower, as has just been seen, en- 
trusted to three languages a reputation which even 
with their aid has been hardly able to maintain itself 
in one. The authority of Chaucer's name and exam- 
ple was, therefore, not unnecessary in this matter. He 
died in 1400 ; and, for more than a century after 
his death, and especially after the revival of classical 
learning, it was still a venturesome undertaking for 
an Englishman to write in EngHsh if he could write 
in Latin. A hundred and fifty years later, Roger 
Ascham, one of the greatest scholars of his age, 
wrote a book on archery, entitled " Toxophilus." It 
was first published in 1545. In his dedication of the 
work to the gentlemen and yeomen of his native land, 
he felt it necessary to apologize for having written it in 
the native speech. " If any man would blame me," 
said he, " either for taking such a matter in hand, or 
else for writing it in the English tongue, this answer I 
may make him : that, what the best of the realm 
think it honest for them to use, I, one of the meanest 
sort, ought not to suppose it vile for me to write. 
And though to have written it in another tongue had 
been both more profitable for my study, and also more 
honest for my name, yet I can think my labor well 
bestowed, if, with a little hinderance of my profit and 



72 English Language. 

my name, may come any furtherance to the pleasure 
or commodity of the gentlemen and yeomen of 
England, for whose sake I took this matter in hand." 
And again, in his dedication of the same work to the 
king, Henry VIIL, he says that it would have been 
easier, and fitter for his profession, to have written the 
book in Latin or in Greek. 

The case of Ascham is by no means an extreme one, 
though he makes conspicuous the comparative disre- 
pute into which English had fallen, in consequence of 
the enthusiastic devotion which in his time was begin- 
ning to be paid to the great classic writers of Greece 
and Rome. This feeling about the native tongue 
showed itself as strongly in the seventeenth century. 
In 1623, seven years after the death of Shakspeare, 
Bacon spent no small part of his time in turning his 
books, originally written in Enghsh, into Latin. He 
did this with the avowed object of saving them for 
posterity. In the dedication of the third edition of 
his Essays to the Duke of Buckingham, written in 
1625, he says, " I do conceive that the Latin volume 
of them (being in the universal language) may last as 
long as books last." The immense incapacity of an 
author of the seventeenth century, and that author 
Bacon, to comprehend the future of his native tongue, 
is, perhaps, the highest tribute that can be paid to 
that great author of the fourteenth century who dehb- 
erately trusted his reputation entirely to it. 

Debasement of Anglo-Norman French. — The sec- 
ond cause for the preference of English to French, 



Debasement of Anglo-Norman French, 73 

which showed itself more and more during the four- 
teenth century, was largely a result of the loss of Nor- 
mandy. At the time of the Conquest, and for a long 
period following, there was no one tongue in North- 
ern France recognized by all as the classic French 
language. There were, instead, four great dialects 
of it, corresponding to four great political divisions. 
These were the Norman, the Picard, the Burgundian, 
and the French of the Isle of France, which last is 
strictly the only one that then bore the name of 
French. Each of these had a literature of its own, 
and the distinction of speech between all of them was 
marked enough to impress itself upon the men of that 
time and is plainly recognized now in the literary 
monuments that have been handed down. Of these 
four dialects, it was the Norman that in the eleventh 
century was carried over into England. 

In France, as in England, it was political considera- 
tions that decided the character of the speech that was 
to become generally adopted. In 987, Hugh Capet, 
Duke of France, was elected its king. At first, his 
sovereignty, outside of his immediate possessions, was 
little more than nominal. The great provinces were 
practically independent, and the languages spoken in 
them were on an equality. But, during the centuries 
following, the power of the French royal house steadily 
rose, and that of its feudal dependents as steadily 
sank. Under its immediate control, especially in the 
thirteenth century, fell many territories over which it 
had previously exercised merely a superior lordship. 



74 English Language, 

The dialect it employed was the dialect of its ances- 
tral dominions, the Isle of France, in which Paris is 
situated. As it extended its authority over the neigh- 
boring districts, it extended along with it the use of 
its own form of speech. The French of Paris spread 
gradually over the conquered provinces. It came to 
be considered the exclusive language of culture and 
of literature, the language which every one spoke who 
looked upon himself as belonging to the higher classes. 
This had the inevitable effect of confining the previ- 
ously independent tongues of the great provinces to 
the use of the peasantry. These tongues, therefore, 
became dialects, which the literary language no longer 
recognized as possessing any authority ; or they even 
sank to that lower form of dialect, peculiar to certain 
districts or certain classes, which we call patois. 

This was what took place in Normandy after its loss 
by the English crown in the early part of the thirteenth 
century. But, bad as the speech of Normandy might 
come to appear as compared with that of Paris, it 
would naturally seem far worse with that dialect after 
it had been transported to England, and cut off from 
direct communication with the same dialect on the 
Continent. Divergences would naturally arise. The 
Norman-French of the island would and did intro- 
duce words and forms that belonged to the varying 
dialects of the various provinces of the Continent that 
from time to time fell under the sway of the kings of 
England. It would be and it was affected by the 
pronunciation of the English of the native inhabitants. 



Debasement of Anglo-Norman French. 75 

Later it was subjected to the overshadowing influence 
of the French of Paris. It accordingly came to have 
a special development of its own. 

Anglo-French, in consequence, was in many particu- 
lars unlike the provincial speech of Normandy or of 
any of the other dialects used on the Continent. Dur- 
ing the course of the centuries, it was certain to deviate 
further and further from the French which had come 
to the front as the classic form of the language. It 
could not fail, therefore, to share in the depreciation 
which is always sure to overtake variations from what 
has become the standard form of the speech. Such 
would necessarily be its fate in France. Such was 
also its fate in England. Eeferences exist to the 
low estimate in which it was held in the fourteenth 
century in both countries. In the '^ Canterbury Tales," 
Chaucer introduces as one of the characters a Prioress, 
who is represented as paying special attention to form 
and ceremony. As a fashionable woman, she felt it 
incumbent to speak French, but was unable to speak 
what had then come to be regarded as pure French. 
He says : — 

And Frenssh she spak ful faire and fetysly, 
After the scole of Stratford-atte-Bowe, 
For Frenssh of Parys was to hire unknowe. 

On the other hand, in the prologue to ^' The Testament 
of Love," written by a contemporary of Chaucer, and 
long imputed to him, there occurs a sentence which 
marks plainly the contemptuous opinion entertained 



j6 E^iglish Language. 

by the French of the debased Anglo-Norman dialect 
found in England. " In Latin and French," said the 
author, "• hath many sovereign wits had great delight 
to endite, and have many noble things fulfilled ; but 
certes there be some that speak their poesy matter in 
French, of which speech the Frenchmen have as good 
a fantasy as we have in hearing of Frenchmen's Eng- 
lish." 

General Adoption of English by all Classes. — All 
these agencies co-operated in bringing about the 
adoption of the native speech by all classes ; yet at 
the end of the fourteenth century, while the success 
of English was well assured, its victory was even then 
far from complete. As was not unnatural, French, 
after it ceased to be necessary, came to be fashion- 
able; and its use long survived its usefulness. In 
fact, it had been for centuries the language not only 
of law and of judicial proceedings, but also of official 
communications of all sorts. This continued to be the 
case after it had gone entirely out of use as the speech 
of any portion of the people. Nearly all the letters 
of Henry IV., who ruled from 1399 to 14 13, are 
written in it or in Latin. Indeed, in the early part 
of the reign of that monarch it almost seems as if it 
were not considered respectful to address him in 
English. Letters to him are even found written in 
two languages. The writer begins in French, as if 
that were the correct thing to do, but, under the 
inability to express himself with sufficient clearness 
or urgency, passes over to the more familiar English, 



Disuse of French in England. yy 

There is even a more significant illustration of this 
feeling in a letter of the Scottish Earl of March, dated 
Feb. 1 8, 1400, in which he offered his services to the 
English king and entreated his support. At the close 
it contained an apology for being written in the Eng- 
lish language. ^'And, noble prince," says the earl, 
" mervaile yhe nocht that I write my lettres in Eng- 
lishe, fore that ys mare clere to myne understandyng 
than Latyne or Fraunche." 

But, during the whole reign of Henry IV. and his 
successor Henry V. (1413-1422), the marks of grow- 
ing unfamiliarity with French rapidly accumulate. One 
of the most striking instances of this is to be found, 
indeed, in the very earliest part of the fifteenth cen- 
tury, in the case of the negotiations that took place in 
1404, between France and England, in regard to the 
outrages committed by each nation at sea. There 
were three ambassadors on the part of the latter 
power, one of whom was a professor of both the civil 
and the canon lav/. In a letter to the French Council, 
dated Sept. i, 1404, they beg that the answer may be 
returned to them in Latin, and not in French. Again, 
in a letter of the 3d of October to the Duchess of 
Burgundy, they state, that although the treaties be- 
tween England and France had been wont to be 
drawn up in French by the consent of the temporal 
princes concerned in them, who did not understand 
Latin as well as French, yet all the letters missive that 
had passed between the contracting parties had been 
written in the former tongue, as being the common 



78 English Language, 

and \ailgar idiom ; and this custom they desire to 
have continued. Later on the reasons for these two 
requests are distinctly given. On the 21st of October, 
in acknowledging the reception of a communication 
from the French ambassadors, they complain of its 
being written in French, and state, that, for men 
unlearned as they are, it might as well have been put 
into Hebrew. It is a most striking proof of the gen- 
eral ignorance of French that had come to prevail in 
England, that ambassadors selected to carry on deli- 
cate and difficult negotiations, one of whom was a 
scholar by profession, should have been utterly unac- 
quainted with the language of the people with which 
terms of settlement were to be made, — a language, 
moreover, which was still mainly used in official docu- 
ments in their own country. 

But during the whole of the fifteenth century this 
ignorance kept on steadily increasing among all classes. 
A necessary result was to substitute the native for the 
foreign speech in all the transactions of life, including, 
what is always the last to be altered, prescribed 
forms. It was sometimes the case that the higher 
orders changed their methods far sooner than those 
inferior to them in position. It was in the first half 
of this century that many of the London guilds began 
to have their regulations translated from French into 
English, and to use the latter tongue in keeping their 
books. A curious entry in the records of the Com- 
pany of Brewers asserts directly that the greater part 
of the Lords and Commons had begun to have the 



Disuse of French in England, 79 

proceedings in which they were concerned written 
down in the native language. Furthermore, it seems 
to say that direct influence was exercised by King 
Henry V. to substitute the use of EngHsh for French. 
Of the entry, which is in Latin, the following is a 
translation : " Whereas, Our mother- tongue, to wit, 
the English tongue, hath in modern days begun to be 
honorably enlarged and adorned : for that our most 
excellent lord, King Henry the Fifth, hath, in his 
letters missive, and divers affairs touching his own 
person, more willingly chosen to declare the secrets 
of his will ; and, for the better understanding of his 
people, hath, with a dihgent mind, procured the com- 
mon idiom (setting aside others) to be commended 
by the exercise of writing ; and there are many of our 
craft of brewers who have the knowledge of writing 
and reading in the said English idiom ; but in others, 
to wit, the Latin and French, before these times used, 
they do not in any wise understand ; for which causes, 
with many others, it being considered how that the 
greater part of the Lords and trusty Commons have 
begun to make their matters to be noted down in our 
mother-tongue, we also in our craft, following in some 
manner their steps, have decreed in future so to com- 
mit to memory the needful things which concern us." 
At last, towards the close of the fifteenth century, 
the laws enacted by Parliament were put into English. 
After the Conquest, they had usually been pubhshed 
in Latin ; but in the reign of the first Edward 
(12 72-1307), at the very period the French was 



8o English Language, 

beginning to lose its hold upon the nation, it was 
introduced into the statutes. In these it gradually 
supplanted the Latin, and by the end of the four- 
teenth century the latter tongue was no longer used in 
legislative enactments. At the end of the fifteenth 
century, French, in turn, had given way to EngUsh. 
During the reign of Richard III. (1483-1485), the 
laws appear — at least in some instances — to have 
been written in both tongues. Early, however, in the 
reign of his successor, Heary VIL, English began 
to be exclusively used. With this accomplished, 
the triumph of the popular speech may be called 
complete. 

Scattered instances, it \% true, of the employment 
of French can be found at a much later period. In- 
struction in the schools through the medium of that 
tongue had been generally given up, as we have seen, 
before the end of the fourteenth century. Yet it un- 
doubtedly continued to survive for a long time in par- 
ticular places. Even ^i-s late as the reign of Henry 
VIII. (1509-1547), at the time of the dissolution of 
the monasteries, it wa^ still found taught in one of the 
conventual schools. A letter to Cromwell from John 
Ap Rice, one of the visitors of religious houses, relat- 
ing to the monastery of Laycock in Wiltshire, men- 
tions a form of French as still being used there which 
was certainly then used by no people to whom that 
tongue was a native speech. ^^The house," he says, 
" is very clean, well-repaired, and well-ordered : and 
one thing I observed worthy the advertisement (i.e. 



Disuse of FrencJi in England. 8 1 

notice) there. The Ladies have their Rule, the Insti- 
tutes of their Rehgion, and the ceremonies of the 
same written in the French tongue, which they under- 
stand well, and are very perfitt in the same. Albeit 
that it varieth from the vulgar French that is now 
used, and is much like the French that the Common 
Law is written in." 

It is likely indeed, that the efforts first to obtain 
and then to retain the EngUsh sovereignty of France, 
which went on in the earher half of the fifteenth cen- 
tury, had a tendency to retard to some extent the 
general abandonment of the French speech. This at 
least was apparently the case with men belonging to 
the legal profession. These seem to have clung with 
special tenacity to that tongue. As late as 1549, 
Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, arguing with 
those who insisted that the mass should be celebrated 
in Latin, declared that he had " heard suitors murmur 
at the bar because their attorneys had pleaded their 
cases in the French tongue which they understood 
not." Still, instances of the kind just mentioned are 
nothing but accidental survivals. They are no evidence 
of the wide prevalence of that tongue in England at 
that time — no more so, in fact, than it would now be 
evidence of its prevalence in this country or in Great 
Britain, that the word oyes (Anglo-French, oyez 
'hear ye') is still used in courts of law to proclaim 
silence, or that the words La Reine (or Le Roi) le veut, 
' The Queen wills it,' are still the ones employed to 
signify the royal assent to an act of parliament. 



CHAPTER V. 

PERIODS IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH 
LANGUAGE, AND THE CHANGES WROUGHT IN 
IT BY THE NORMAN CONQUEST. 

What was this popular speech, which, at the end 
of the fourteenth century, was for the first time mani- 
festing its capability of becoming the vehicle of a 
great literature? It was certainly not the Anglo- 
Saxon. Between that and it had taken place a diver- 
gence even more profound and wide-reaching than 
that which marks the separation of French from its 
parent Latin. The tongue spoken or written by an 
Englishman of the tenth century would have been as 
unintelligible to an Englishman of the fourteenth as 
it is to an Englishman of the nineteenth. In the 
course of those four hundred years the language had 
not simply suffered modification, or undergone de- 
velopment, it had experienced revolution. Nor was 
this popular tongue precisely that which is found in 
the literature of to-day; though the differences be- 
tween it and our present speech are differences of 
degree, and not of kind; or, to make use of the same 
form of statement already employed, they are differ- 
82 • 



English after the Conqttest. 83 

ences that have arisen from modification and develop- 
ment, and not at all from revolution. To bring out 
the general nature of the divergence in grammar and 
vocabulary that came into being between the English 
of the tenth and eleventh centuries and that of the 
fourteenth will be the aim of the present chapter. 

The Language before the Conquest. — Let us at this 
point recount briefly the results already reached. 
Up to the Norman Conquest the linguistic situation 
may be thus described : A Low-Germ.anic tongue was 
the speech of all the Teutonic inhabitants of Great 
Britain from the Channel to the Frith of Forth. It 
was called by those who then spoke it, E?tglisc, that 
is, * English, ' but is now styled by some Anglo-Saxon, 
by others Old English. In this tongue there existed 
several dialects. One of these, the West-Saxon, had 
become the language of law and of literature, — the 
language in which the educated classes talked and 
wrote. Into this language there had been introduced 
in the course of centuries a very slight number of 
Celtic and of Norse words, and a much larger num- 
ber of Latin ones. But, notwithstanding these addi- 
tions, it continued to be — what it had been, not 
merely as regards grammar, but also as regards vocab- 
ulary — essentially a Teutonic tongue. 

The Language after the Conquest. — With the in- 
troduction of Norman-French, this state of affairs 
underwent a change. It was not that the Anglo- 
Saxon ceased to be a spoken language, or even a 
written one; but it did cease to be a cultivated one. 



84 English La7tguage. 

One result of this was, that the West-Saxon dialect 
sank speedily from its position of supremacy, and in 
process of time fell to the level of the other dialects 
which it had itself supplanted. The inevitable effect 
was, that the popula^r speech was left to run its own 
course, without any restraining influence whatever. 
Each district had words and forms and syntactical 
constructions and methods of pronunciation of its 
own, which were little known or used outside of its 
borders. Everything was in confusion. 

Such a result as this is something that is always sure 
to occur when a cultivated tongue comes to be used 
exclusively by the uneducated or the partially edu- 
cated. No standard of authority exists anywhere in it, 
which is felt to be binding upon all. The influence 
of the old literature has passed away ] for it is em- 
bodied in a form of speech which has gone or is 
rapidly going out of use. As yet no great authors 
have risen to establish methods of expression to 
which the speech of the better class will be made to 
conform. There are few, if any, books written in 
this new developing tongue. There are but few per- 
sons to read those that are written. Learned almost 
wholly by the ear, and scarcely at all by the eye, the 
language is specially subject to the phonetic and 
linguistic changes of all kinds that rude and ignorant 
men may bring about by modifying pronunciation, 
by confounding declensions and conjugations, by dis- 
regarding syntactical laws, in short, by all the numer- 
ous processes of decay and regeneration to which a 



English after the Conquest, 85 

living tongue is subject by the very fact of its being 
a living tongue. To such influences as these the 
native speech was exposed, with little check, after 
the Conquest; and it at once entered, in conse- 
quence, upon a series of rapid and violent changes. 

These changes were of several kinds; but there 
were two principal ones. One of them was the loss 
of inflections in the native speech; the other, the 
introduction into it of French words. The latter is 
a direct result of the Conquest; the former, only an 
indirect one. This is clear from the fact that even 
before the Conquest the process of stripping the 
speech of its inflection had already begun to show 
itself. Furthermore, it has taken place on a large 
scale in the case of other Teutonic peoples, whose 
languages have been subject to none of the influences 
that follow subjugation by a foreign race speaking a 
foreign tongue. What, therefore, the introduction 
of Norman-French into England did was to hasten 
rapidly that abandonment of inflection by the Eng- 
lish speech, which, in a greater or less degree, was 
certain to come some time. But besides this, it had 
a powerful influence upon the extent to which this 
abandonment took place. The inhabitants of the 
island were largely cut off by their position from con- 
tact with foreign nations. At the time of the French 
invasion they had developed a literature of their own. 
These two conditions would have concurred to pre- 
vent the loss of inflections on any extensive scale, had 
not the abolition of any standard of authority, result- 



86 English Language. 

ing from the Conquest, thrown the native speech into 
a chaotic state and interfered throughout with its 
orderly development. 

The changes that took place, as a result of the 
Conquest, indirectly in the inflectional system, and 
directly in the vocabulary, of the English tongue, 
were so numerous and great that it has been cus- 
tomary to'^give the language during several centuries 
different names. It is of itself a convincing proof 
of the confused and varying character of our early 
speech, that scarcely any two scholars have agreed 
upon the titles or dates of the periods which they 
have adopted. This is not at all to be wondered at. 
Scientific precision in such respects is not attainable 
in even the most cultivated and stable tongues. 
Dates in the history of a language are convenient for 
reference ; they are worth little for accuracy of 
statement. Men do not use one form of speech one 
year, and a different form the following year. This, 
which is true of any tongue, no matter how marked 
the changes, is especially true of the earlier stages 
of our own, in which the changes were not merely 
rapid, but in which they were unequal in different 
parts of the country. The language of the North of 
England advanced much more quickly toward Modern 
English than the language of the South; and a state- 
ment, in consequence, which would be true of the 
one, might be grossly false of the other. 

Periods of the English Language. — It is, accord- 
ingly, to be borne in mind that the titles and dates 



Periods of English. 87 

about to be given are in themselves of no authority, 
and are used mainly as a matter of convenience; that 
the same terms, when employed by others, may not 
and often do not mean the same things; that other 
divisions, and an entirely different nomenclature, 
will be found in other works treating upon this same 
subject. In particular, there is a division and a 
nomenclature now frequently used, with which it may 
be important for the student to be familiar. Accord- 
ing to this, the language down to iioo — sometimes 
to 1 150 — is termed Old English; from that date to 
about 1500, Middle English, and from 1500 to the 
present day, Modern English. With this understand- 
ing, it is only necessary to add that the following will 
be the names and limits of the periods into which, 
in this volume, English is divided : — 

I. The Anglo-Saxon period will embrace that form 
of the language spoken from the first coming of the 
Saxons and Angles — that is, from the middle of the 
fifth century — to the middle of the century following 
the Norman conquest, — that is, to the year 1150. 

II. The Old English period will embrace the form 
of the language spoken between 1150 and 1350. 

III. Middle English will embrace the form of the 
language used between 1350 and 1550. 

IV. Modern English will be the name given to the 
language as spoken from the middle of the sixteenth 
century to the present time. 

The following schedule represents, accordingly, the 



88 English Language, 

nomenclature of the periods, with their limits, as 
employed in this volume : — 

I. Anglo-Saxon , 450-1 150 

II. Old English 1 150-1350 

III. Middle English 1 350-1 550 

IV. Modern EngHsh 1550- 

Furthermore, when it is desired to use a general 
term covering the period between 1150 and 1550, 
the term ^^ Early English" will be employed. This 
corresponds essentially with the period designated as: 
the Middle English by those who apply to Anglo- 
Saxon the term Old English. 

Literature of the Old English Period. — Of the 
literature of the Anglo-Saxon period, a slight account 
has already been given. In the Old English period 
there were composed a large number of works, many 
of which still exist only in manuscript. To a great 
extent they are translations from the French, or a 
working-over of French productions. As regards 
their subject-matter, they may be divided into the 
following classes : — 

I. Religious works. Of these, one of the earliest 
and on the whole the most important is the '' Ormu- 
lum," a poem without rhyme or alliteration, written 
about 1200, by an Augustinian monk named Ormin 
or Orm. It is essentially a life of Christ made up 
from the Gospels. It is marked by one peculiarity, 
which has made it of special importance in the his- 
tory of English pronunciation. It intentionally car- 



LiteraUtre of the Old English Period, 89 

ries out one principle which has to some extent 
governed the spelling of our speech. This is the 
doubling of the consonant after a short vowel. Thus, 
for illustration, and^ unde7\ taken, birth, appear in 
this poem as annd, tmnderr^ takejtn, and birrth, 
while zvo7'd, book, write, and right are spelled as at 
present. There were also a number of works of a 
moral and religious character, both in prose and 
verse; homilies and homiletic treatises, some of 
which are of an earlier date than the "Ormulum"; 
legends of saints and martyrs; and versions of his- 
tories or parts of histories contained in the Bible, 
intermixed with narratives drawn from other sources. 
2. Romances and legendary history. These may 
be said to begin with the "Brut," a poem composed 
about the same time as the "Ormulum" by a Worces- 
tershire priest named Layamon. It is a chronicle, 
embodying that fabulous history of Britain, which for 
several centuries was accepted as true. The poem 
takes its name from a mythical Brutus, a great-grand- 
son of ^neas, who collected the descendants of the 
Trojans that had been taken captive by the Greeks, 
freed them from their slavery, and after various 
adventures conducted them to Britain, which received 
from him its name. It then gives an account of the 
lives and actions of the legendary kings who suc- 
ceeded, down to the occupation of the country by the 
Saxons. In this list of monarchs the names of Lear 
and Cymbeline have been made especially familiar 
to students of literature by the plays of Shakspeare. 



90 English Language, 

The work of Layamon has been handed down in 
two versions, the first of which is dated about 1200, 
while the second is thought to be about fifty years 
later. Besides the ^^Brut," there is a long list of 
romantic narratives dealing with the fortunes of 
purely fictitious characters, such as Havelock, King 
Horn, Sir Bevis of Hampton, and the Knights of 
Arthur's Round Table, or with events largely ficti- 
tious in the lives of real personages, such as Alexander 
the Great, Charlemagne, and Richard I. of England. 

3. Histories. These were in part fabulous, it is 
true, but not so deemed by their authors. They 
belong exclusively to the latter half of the Old Eng- 
lish period, and consist of chronicles in verse by a 
writer commonly termed Robert of Gloucester, and 
by Robert Manning of Brunne. The work of the 
latter is a translation from the French of Pierre de 
Langtoft. Both of these writers treat of the history 
of Britain from the legendary coming of Brutus to a 
period near their own time; the former ending with 
the accession of Edward I. in 1272; the latter, with 
his death in 1307. 

4. Shorter poems, either of a satirical or of a purely 
lyrical character. The latter are much the more 
abundant. The most conspicuous among these are 
"The Land of Cokaygne," the "Ule and Nihtegale " 
(the Owl and Nightingale), and a series of lyric 
poems of a political, devotional, or social nature. 
The works in all these classes are of the highest value 
to the student of the language; but it is only those of 



Alliterative Verse and Rhyme. 91 

this last class that have any claim whatever to literary 
excellence, and these are comparatively few in number. 
Alliterative Verse. — One feature worthy of men- 
tion, that characterizes the Old English period, is 
the tendency to abandon alliteration, and substitute 
for it final rhyme. In Anglo-Saxon verse instances 
of rhyme are occasional, and probably often purely 
accidental; at any rate, it is only in a piece of 
eighty lines that it is deliberately employed through- 
out, and in that it is mixed with alliteration, with 
the result that no modern scholar has been successful 
in getting any coherent meaning out of the poem, or 
rather of putting any into it. It was not until after 
the Norman Conquest that rhyme came to be regu- 
larly employed. Even then it was apt to be more or 
less combined with alliteration, especially in the early 
part of the Old English period. Though it soon 
began to be discarded, the pure alliterative verse did 
not die out entirely till the sixteenth century. It main- 
tained its ground in the North long after it had been 
disused in the South. Chaucer, in the " Canterbury 
Tales, " comments on these distinguishing peculiarities 
of the two parts of the island, when, in the following 
lines, he represents the parish priest as preferring to 
say what he has to say in prose, instead of adopting 
either of the two forms of verse then in use : — 

But trusteth wel, I am a Southern man. 

I can not geste ^ — rom^ raniy ruf — by lettre, 

Ne,2 God wot, rym holde I but litel bettre. 

1 Compose a story. 2 jsjor. 



g2 English Language. 

Yet in spite of the fact that alliterative verse was 
the favorite form of versification in the North, and 
did not die out till the sixteenth century, the most 
conspicuous work composed in it belongs to the 
fourteenth century, and to the dialect of the Mid- 
land. This is ^^The Vision of Piers Plowman." It 
exists in three versions, and the opening lines of the 
prologue in the first version will exemplify the char- 
acter it had come to assume, as contrasted with the 
alliterative verse of the Anglo-Saxon period ^ : — 

In a somer sesun • whon softe was ]?e sonne, 

I schop me into a schroud • a scheep as I were ; 

In habite of an hermite ' vnholy of werkes, 

Wende I wydene in Hs world * wondres to here. 

Bote in a Mayes morwnynge * on Maluerne hulles 

Me bifel a ferly • a feyrie, me j^ouhte; 

I was weori of vv-andringe ' and wente me to reste, 

Vndur a brod banke • hi a bourne syde, 

And as I lay and leonede • and lokede on the watres, 

I slumberde in a slepyng • hit sownede so murie.^ 



1 See page 30. 

2 In a summer season • when mild [soft] was the sun, 

I put [shaped] me into a garment [shroud] "as if I were a 

shepherd; 
In habit of a hermit • unholy of acts [works] , 
Went I wide about in this world * wonders to hear. 
But on a May morning • on Malvern hills 
There befell me a wonder • of fairy origin, methought, 
I was weary of wandering * and went to rest me, 
Under a broad bank ' by the side of a stream [burn] , 
And as I lay and leaned * and looked on the waters, 
I slumbered in a sleep * it sounded so merrily. 

In the version here given the modern forms of the words, for 
which others are substituted, are added, enclosed in brackets. 



Grammatical Changes in Old Ejiglish, 93 

The inferiority of alliterative verse to rhyme as an 
instrument of expression, led to its abandonment by 
all the Teutonic nations at comparatively early peri- 
ods in their literary history. 

Changes in Grammar between Anglo-Saxon and Mid- 
dle English. — A more detailed account of the changes 
that took place in the grammatical structure after the 
Conquest will be found in the second part; here but 
a slight summary can be given. Comparisons can 
necessarily be made only between periods which have 
a standard literature of their own. Outside of these 
no general statements are trustworthy. The several 
dialects of English varied widely in the order and 
degree of their development, and therefore what is 
true of one at a particular time would be untrue of 
the rest. Grammatical forms which appear regu- 
larly in one author would not be found at all in 
another, writing at the very same time. Accordingly, 
comparison will in this particular case be made 
between the literary West-Saxon, and that dialect of 
English which was employed by the great writers of 
the fourteenth century. It was they who established 
the language of literature. Of them Chaucer, as the 
greatest of all, may be selected as the representative. 
Consequently it is his usage that will be taken as 
the standard by which the extent and character of the 
changes that had gone on are to be tested. 

One further fact is to be borne in mind. Whatever 
may be the limits fixed upon for the periods in the 
history of any tongue, and whatever characteristics 



94 English Language. 

may be attributed to these periods, assertions made 
in regard to them can only be true generally; they 
are always subject to specific exceptions. To illus- 
trate this point, let us take its, the genitive of the 
neuter pronoun of the third person. It is not till the 
Modern English period that it came into existence. 
It took the place of his, which had been previously 
the neuter as well as masculine genitive. It would 
be right, therefore, to say that his, as the genitive of 
the neuter pronoun of the third person is not char- 
acteristic of Modern English. Yet, while this is true 
generally, it is so far from being true specifically, that 
his can be found where we should now use its, for a 
hundred years after the Modern English period begins. 
We meet with it in the works of Shakspeare and 
Milton, and it appears frequently in the authorized 
version of the Bible, as in verses like the following : 
" If the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be 
salted?" 

Let us begin, then, with the modifications which 
the inflectional system underwent. These are first 
brought to our knowledge by certain orthographical 
changes which took place in consequence of a change 
in pronunciation. Two of them are of special impor- 
tance. One is the weakening into e of the vowels a, 
o^ and u of the terminations. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon, 
-an is the regular ending of the infinitive: it was 
soon after the Conquest weakened into -en, 'To tell,' 
in the eleventh century was tellan : in the twelfth 
century it became tellen. So, in like manner, oxa, 



Gravimaiical Changes in Old English, 95 

*ox, ' became oxe; oxan, 'oxen, ' became oxen ; s tanas, 
* stones, ' and s tolas, 'stools, ' became stanes and stoles ; 
carUy 'care/ became care. This was a change that 
was certain to happen in English, as in the other 
Teutonic languages, had the Norman-French never 
set foot in Britain. All the effect produced by their 
coming was to hasten its general adoption; and 
during the twelfth century it did become generally 
established. 

The second change was the dropping of the final -n, 
— a peculiarity which the Northumbrian dialect, as 
has been seen (p. 46), exhibited at an early day. 
This, however, was much slower of general adoption 
than the weakening of the vowels a, 0, and u. In 
truth, though common much earlier, it did not become 
thoroughly established till the latter part of the 
fifteenth century. This final -n can be found even 
in the sixteenth century or later, though it then sur- 
vived merely as an archaism. Its gradual disappear- 
ance from the endings, working in conjunction with 
the weakening of the vowels a, o, and u just men- 
tioned, had the effect of making the final -e the one 
termination of the Middle English which represented 
nearly all the terminations of the Anglo-Saxon that 
had been preserved at all. Accordingly, in the study 
of this one ending is involved the study of nearly 
the whole grammatical inflection of that period. It 
was, moreover, largely due to the steady reduction 
of all terminations to this single one, that the confu- 
sion sprang up in usage, which, in turn, led, in great 



96 English Language. 

measure, to the rejection of inflection altogether. 
What there was left of it in the fourteenth century, 
compared with Anglo-Saxon, will be stated very 
briefly. There are exceptions to the universal appli- 
cability of the results to be here given, but they are 
neither numerous nor important. 

In the noun, the two leading declensions of the 
Anglo-Saxon — the vowel or strong, and the consonant 
or weak^ — with their several subordinate declen- 
sions, had been reduced to the one inflection seen in 
the masculine noun of the vowel declension. Dis- 
tinction between the terminations of the nominative, 
dative, and accusative singular had practically dis- 
appeared. The only case which had a form of its 
own was the genitive, which ended in -es. This uni- 
fying process had gone on even more thoroughly in 
the plural. All the four cases had there been reduced 
to a common form, which is, as now, the same as 
that of the genitive singular. This -es of the genitive 
singular and of the plural usually formed a distinct 
syllable in pronunciation, at least in monosyllabic 
nouns. Thus kings would be pronounced as kinges. 

The adjective in Anglo-Saxon was very rich in 
inflections. By the latter part of the fourteenth 
century it had been nearly stripped of them. All 
that was left to represent the numerous termina- 
tions that once existed was the final -e, and this 
was not used extensively. Its main employment 
was to distinguish the plural from the singular- 

1 See Part II., sees. 24, 25, and 27. 



Grammatical Changes in Old English. 97 

Thus, while in the latter number we should have 
old man, in the former we should have aide men. 
Obviously even this distinction could not prevail in 
the case of adjectives, such as newe, grene, blithe, 
which themselves ended in -e. The disappearance of 
the terminations led also to the disappearance of the 
difference between the two original declensions of the 
adjective, — the definite and the indefinite.^ A trace 
of the former continued to manifest itself in the 
addition of e in certain cases to the singular. For 
illustration, the adjective preceded by the, or a de- 
monstrative pronoun, would end in -e. To make use 
of the example given above, we should, when using 
the definite declension, say the or that aide man. 
This grammatical form was still common at the 
beginning of the Middle English period. 

The personal pronouns and the interrogative who 
(A. S. hwa) were somewhat more fortunate in pre- 
serving their inflection. They retained a distinct 
form for the case which we now call the objective; 
and this was founded upon the original dative, the 
original accusative having been given up. The 
difference of form between these two cases had even 
during the Anglo-Saxon period begun to disappear 
in the pronouns of the first and the second person. 
Thus the original accusatives mec and usic were then 
frequently replaced by the datives ml and us,'^ This 
tendency was carried on still further after the Con- 
quest, and was extended to the pronoun of the third 

1 See Part II., sees, 69-73. ^^^- ^-^s- ^^3* ^^^» ^^^ ^34* 



98 English Language. 

person. Accordingly hine^ the accusative of lie was, 
replaced by the dative him. In a similar way hwone, 
the original accusative of the interrogative hwa,'^ 
gave way to hwam, Svhom.' The only exception to 
the universality of this rule was in the case of the 
neuter pronoun of the third person, in which the 
original accusative hit, ^it, ' became the objective. 
This was due, however, to the fact that its original 
dative hi77i had come to be limited to the masculine. 

A further loss was the dual number, which in 
Anglo-Saxon survived to a certain extent in the pro- 
nouns of the first and second persons.^ This had 
disappeared entirely, and at a comparatively early 
period. Furthermore, in the case of the pronouns of 
the third person, hi or hlo, the earlier form for the 
nominative plural had been abandoned, and its 
place was supplied by they, or thei, strictly the 
plural of a demonstrative pronoun. Accordingly in 
Chaucer the inflection of this plural is they, here, 
'their,' hem, 'them.' Pronouns which had inflec- 
tions resembling those of the adjective had been 
stripped of them in the ^ame manner as they. 

In the case of the verb, while the distinction 
between the two leading conjugations still continued 
to exist as now, the barriers between the subordinate 
conjugations under each had been largely broken 
down. Again, the verbs of the strong or old conju- 
gation — that is, verbs like drive, drove, which add 
nothing to form the preterite, and suffer vowel change 

1 See Part II., sec. 134. 2 ib. sec. 103. 



Gravimatical CJianges in Old EiiglisJi. 99 

— had in vast numbers passed over to the weak con- 
jugation, that is, to verbs like light, lighted, which 
take an additional syllable or letter to form the 
preterite. The inflections, to some extent, were 
still retained; thus, for illustration, //z^j' /<?// was they 
tellen or they telle. The use of compound verb- 
phrases, such as / have told, I shall tell, had been 
vastly extended. In particular, at this very time, 
the employment of do and did with the infinitive — 
as in / do give, I did give — was just beginning to 
come into use. 

A consideration of these statements shows that 
Middle English differs but slightly in its grammati- 
cal structure from the English of to-day. In fact, 
no small proportion of the difficulty that the modern 
reader at first encounters in examining the literature 
of this period is due merely to difference of orthog- 
raphy. A passage from Chaucer in the original 
spelling, and in modern spelling so far as it can be 
employed, will illustrate better than pages of descrip- 
tion the essential likeness, and the extent of the un- 
likeness, that prevail between the language of the 
fourteenth century and that of the nineteenth. Fur- 
thermore, when it is compared with the specimens of 
the English of the Anglo-Saxon period, found on 
pp. 30, 33, it will show clearly how wide was the 
chasm that separated the language of the fourteenth 
century from that of the eleventh. 

In the modernized version of the following passage 
ifrom the beginning of the Wife of Bath's tale, as told 



LGFC. 



100 E7tglish Language. . - 

in the ^^ Canterbury Tales," the pronunciation of 
syllables no longer sounded is marked by the sign ' ; 
the accentuation of syllables either not accented or 
not sufficiently accented now is marked by the sign '; 
while the insertion of a hyphen between syllables 
shows that they are all to be pronounced. 

'*In tholde dayes of the Kyng Arthour, 
Of which that Britons speken greet honour, 
Al was this land fulfild of fayerie ; 
The elf queen with hir joly compaignye, 
Daunced ful ofte in many a grene mede; 
This was the olde opinion, as I rede. 
I speke of manye hundred yeres ago; 
But now kan no man se none elves mo. 
For now the grete charitee and prayeres 
Of lymytours and othere hooly freres, 
That serchen every lond and every streem, 
As thikke as motes in the sonne beem, 
Blessynge halles, chambres, kichenes, boures, 
Citees, burghes, castels, hye toures, 
Thropes, bernes, shipnes, dayeryes, 
This maketh that ther been no fairyes. 
For ther as wont to walken was an elf, 
Ther walketh now the lymytour hym self, 
In undermeles and in morwenynges, 
And seyth his matyns and his hooly thynges 
As he gooth in his lymytacioun. 
Wommen may go now saufly up and doun, 
In every bussh or under every tree; 
There is noon other incubus but he." 

" In th' olde dayes of the King Arthodr, 
Of which that Britons speaken great honodr. 
All was this land fulfilled of fa-e-ry; 



Lexical Changes iji Old English. lOi 

The elf-queen, with her jolly company, 
Danced full oft in many a greene mead; 
.This was the old opinion, as I read. 
I speak of many hundred years ago; 
But now can no man see none elves mo. 
For now the greate charity and prayeres 
Of limiters ^ and other holy freres, 
That searchen every land and. every stream, 
As thick as motes in the sunne-beam, 
Blessing halles, chambers, kitchenes, bowers, 
Cities, boroughs, castles, highe towers, 
Thorpes,^ barnes, shipnes,^ da-i-ries, 
This maketh that there be no fa-i-ries. 
For there as wont to walken was an elf. 
There walketh now the limiter himself, 
In undermeles ^ and in morwenynges, ^ 
And saith his matins and his holy thinges 
As he goth in his lim-i-ta-ti-6n. 
Women may go now safely up and down. 
In every bush or under every tree; 
There is none other incubus but he. " 

Change in the Vocabulary. — Such is a brief outline 

of the principal changes that took place in the inflec- 
tional system of the English tongue. Many of them 
would doubtless have happened had there been no 
Norman Conquest; but to that event were certainly 
due both the rapidity with which, and the extent to 
which, they were carried out. But the second great 
change we have to consider was a direct result of the 
Conquest. This was the introduction of foreign 
words into the vocabulary. It was a process which, 

1 A begging friar, assigned a certain limit for begging. 

2 Villages. ^ Stables. * Afternoons. ^ Mornings. 



I02 English Language. 

in certain respects, transformed the character of oui 
speech. 

The coming of the Normans into England brought 
two languages into close geographical connection. 
French, as has been pointed out, was the speech of 
the higher classes, English, that of the great body of 
the people. Yet for two centuries these tongues 
existed side by side, without the latter borrowing 
words, to any extent, from the former. It is not 
necessary to assume that this condition of things was 
due to any hostility between the races, or to any dis- 
inclination on the part of the conquered people to 
use the language of their conquerors. On the con- 
trary, an opposite state of feeling prevailed in both 
respects. There was undeniably contempt felt and 
expressed at times for the native population, espe- 
cially by those members of the higher classes whose 
interests were largely on the Continent. Not so with 
those who were born and brought up in the island, and 
looked upon it as their permanent home. Between 
them and the native English the fusion of races had 
gone on rapidly. Even in the twelfth century it was 
not always possible to tell whether any particular per- 
son, if a freeman, was of Norman or of English de- 
scent. Such, at least, is the assertion of Richard, 
bishop of London, in his treatise entitled Dialogus 
de Scaccajio, 'Dialogue on the Exchequer.' This 
work was written, as he tells us, in the 23d year of 
Henry II., that is, in 11 77, when he was treasurer of 
the exchequer. ^^Now," he says, ^Mn consequence 



Lexical Changes in Old EjtgHsh. 103 

of the English and the Normans dwelling together, 
and marrying and giving in marriage wives from 
among each other, the peoples are so mixed, that it 
can scarcely be told at the present day — I am speak- 
ing of freemen — who is of the English and who of 
the Norman race." Consequently the failure to bor- 
row words from the French can hardly be imputed to 
hostility on the part of the English. The explana- 
tion of the course they took is really very simple. 
They did not employ any new words because they 
did not need them; the existing stock of terms was 
amply sufficient to convey all the knowledge they 
sought to impart, or to express the few new ideas to 
which they gave birth. 

At any rate, the fact of little borrowing cannot be 
disputed. The "Brut" of Layamon was composed 
nearly a hundred and fifty years after the Conquest. 
It is a poem containing thirty-two thousand short 
lines, and yet there are in it hardly a hundred words 
of Norman-French origin. The proportion is much 
less in the "Ormulum," — a composition of about 
the same date, and containing nearly twenty thou- 
sand short lines. During the century that followed, 
the accessions from foreign sources are neither exten- 
sive nor important. Naturally, the number of French 
words adopted into English speech became more and 
more as time went on; and at every period since its 
introduction it has always varied with the nature of 
the subject-matter; but, down to the end of the thir- 
teenth century, the additions that had come from this 



104 English Language, 

quarter to the native speech formed only a very small 
percentage of the whole. 

It was in the last half-century of the Old English 
period — that is, from 1300 to 1350 — that a great 
change took place in this respect. It was during 
those years that the higher classes of the island may 
be said to have generally abandoned the French 
speech, and to have adopted that of the mass of the 
people. This could hardly have happened on the 
rapid and extensive scale it did, had not the English 
been for a long time already the real mother-tongue 
of the nobility as well as of the commonalty. French 
was indeed the language which the former class had 
been in the habit of using; but it was none the less 
a foreign tongue. The pressure v/hich had made it 
a necessity for every one to learn it, had been steadily 
growing more and more irksome. It was merely a 
question of time when the burden would be thrown 
off by the large majority, and the acquisition of the 
French language would be left only to those who had 
special reasons for becoming acquainted with it. 
This was what actually took place at the period in- 
dicated. 

It was natural and indeed inevitable that the 
classes which had been in the habit of employing 
French, should bring into the speech they had adopted 
as their own, many of the words with which they 
were most familiar. Especially would this be true of 
terms descriptive of their habits and customs and 
ways of life, or expressive of thoughts and feelings 



Lexical Changes in Old English. 105 

peculiar to themselves. For many of these the native 
English would have no precise equivalent. Nor if 
it had, would the terms it furnished be recommended 
by their associations. Hence, it happened that dur- 
ing the half-century mentioned a vast multitude of 
words came from the French into the English. 
What had been left of the grammatical inflection was 
Teutonic; but the vocabulary from this time assumed 
that mixed character which has ever since been one 
of its marked peculiarities. Even in the earliest 
writers of the Middle English period, the foreign 
words constitute one-half of the whole number they 
employ; and the proportion has remained essentially 
unchanged from that time to the present. Such a 
statement is, of course, based upon the special glos- 
sary of an author in which a word that occurs but 
once in his writings counts for as much as one that 
is used by him a thousand times. The article the^ 
for illustration, is found in nearly every sentence of 
Shakspeare; but in estimating his whole vocabulary, 
it is reckoned for no more than, for instance, cousin- 
german or fanatical, either one of which appears 
only once in all his writings. On the other hand, in 
estimating the frequency with which Teutonic or 
Romance words are used in any particular work or 
passage, there has never been a period in which, 
or a writer in whom, the former element has not 
vastly exceeded the latter. 

This large accession of French words is technically 
called the '* Latin of the Third Period " ; but it is 



io6 English Language, 

widely different in character from any accession from 
that quarter the speech had previously received. 
Unlike these, it entered into and modified the whole 
framework of expression, and profoundly influenced 
the course which the language was to take in refer- 
ence to future additions to its vocabulary. Other 
Teutonic tongues may make use of Romance words : 
the English must make use of them, even in denounc- 
ing them. This is an essential distinction, which 
may be disregarded, but cannot be denied; and it 
had its origin in that change in the nature of the 
language which was a direct result of the vast irrup- 
tion of French terms in the fourteenth century. Has 
this change been a benefit, or an injury? This ques- 
tion has given rise to much controversy, and is, from 
its nature, one that can never be settled to the satis- 
faction of all. In this place it is only important to 
point out the principal losses which the speech suf- 
fered as a consequence of the alteration in its 
character. 

Losses of Middle English as compared with Anglo- 
Saxon. — The first of these was the loss of native 
words. Language is always economical, and is not 
long disposed to retain terms and expressions of 
which it has no real need. When, therefore, two 
different words — the one of Anglo-Saxon, the other 
of French origin, but both meaning precisely the 
same thing — came to exist side by side, one of two 
results was certain to happen in the majority of in- 
stances. First, both terms would be retained, and a 



Loss of Formative Affixes, 107 

distinction would be made in their signification. 
Secondly, if no such use could be made of both, or, 
as a matter of fact, was not made, one of them was 
fairly sure to be dropped. In a large number of 
cases it was the native word that was rejected, in the 
speech of the fourteenth century, and the foreign one 
that was retained. It is probably an under rather 
than an over estimate to assert that more than one- 
half of the Anglo-Saxon vocabulary has been lost 
to Modern English; and the place of it has neces- 
sarily been supplied, whether for good or ill, by im- 
portations from alien sources. 

A second and perhaps more serious blow to the 
resources of the language was the loss of a large num- 
ber of formative prefixes and suffixes. By the addi- 
tion of the former of these, the meaning of the word 
is modified. By the addition of the latter, not only is 
the meaning modified, but the word itself is usually 
changed from one part of speech into another. In 
these elements the original speech abounded. It 
possessed, in consequence, almost unlimited power 
in the creation of new terms from native roots. Thus 
from the Anglo-Saxon flowan, 'to flow,' ten new 
compounds were formed by the addition of various 
prefixes, of which ten, only one, oferflozijan, 'to 
overflow,' survives with us. In a similar manner, 
from the verb siitan, 'to sit,' thirteen new verbs were 
formed, of which not a single one is to be found to- 
day. Even in some instances where a prefix has 
been retained in certain words, the power of employ- 



io8 English Language, 

ing it to form new ones has been given up. Thus 
with is still found in withdraw, withhold, withstand, 
and the somewhat archaic withsay. But we no 
longer employ it to form new words by prefixing it 
to other verbs than these; whereas, originally, it 
could have been compounded with almost any verb, 
and was actually compounded with about thirty. 

Again, the Anglo-Saxon was comparatively rich in 
formative sufifixes. Many more of these suffixes have 
been preserved in Modern English than of the pre- 
fixes. Some, indeed, are as much employed now 
as in the earliest speech. Among those still com- 
monly used to form new nouns are -er (A. S. -ere), 
as in do-er from the verb do ; -ing (A. S. -tmg, -ing), 
as in lea7ii-ing from the verb learn ; -ness (A. S. -7ies, 
-nis), as va firm- ness from the adjective firin ; -hood 
(A. S. -had), as in man-hood from the noun nian ; and 
-ship (A. S. -scipe), as in friend-ship from the noun 
friend. Of those used to form new adjectives the ter- 
minations -ful{k. S. -full), -ish (A. S. -isc), -less (A. S. 
-I'eas), and -y (A. S. -ig) are among the most common, 
and can be exemplified in the words cai-e-ftcl, thiev- 
ish, redd-ish, hope-less, and snow-y. The ending -ly 
or -like (A. S. -lie) is also constantly used still to form 
new adjectives or adverbs, especially the latter, as 
may be seen mfriend-ly, god-like, and open-ly. There 
are others such as -dom (A. S. -dom) and -ed (A. S. 
-ede), exemplified in king-dom, and horn-ed, which 
likewise continue to be employed, though with less 
frequency. Furthermore, the use of some of these 



Loss of Formative Affixes, 109 

terminations has been extended in Modern Eng 
lish. In Anglo-Saxon -hady the present -hood, and 
-ImSy the present -less, were used only with nouns ; 
whereas they are now sometimes added, in the one 
case to adjectives, as XYi false-hood, and in the other 
case to verbs, as in daunt-less. Still, though several 
of these endings have survived, many have either 
passed out of use entirely, or are no longer employed 
to create new words. 

The third loss was in the power of forming self- 
explaining compounds. In this respect the Anglo- 
Saxon rivalled the modern German. Thus carpenter 
could with them be expressed by treow-wyrhta, ^tree- 
wright,' or ^worker in wood'; butcher, by fl^sc- 
mangere, ^flesh-monger,' or dealer in flesh'; library 
by bochus, ^book-house.' Hundreds of other illustra- 
tions could easily be given of the facility and free- 
dom with which men then employed the power of 
combining familiar words to form new ones. Many 
of these compounds went out of use early. Others 
disappeared in the fourteenth century in consequence 
of words with an equivalent meaning having been 
taken from the French. The mere loss of these was 
not in itself so serious a detriment, however, as the 
indisposition, which sprang up in consequence, to 
form or to employ self-explaining compounds when 
their places could be readily supplied by borrowing. 

This indisposition, not to say aversion, can be 
plainly traced in the history of the language from the 
beginning of the Middle English period to the pres- 



no English Language, 

ent time. Thus, for illustration, the Anglo-Saxon 
sunnan-stede appears later as sun-stead, that is, the 
sun's stopping-place; and was used to denote that 
part of the ecliptic in which the sun is farthest from 
the equator. In lieu of this, we now go to the Latin 
solstitium, formed of two words similar in meaning 
to the corresponding English ones, and from it 
derive the term solstice. By this we certainly lose 
something in picturesqueness and force of expres- 
sion, though we may possibly gain in precision. Or 
an illustration from the present period can be em- 
ployed. A certain liquid substance exuding in vari- 
ous ways from the earth needs a name. Seen oozing 
from the crevices of a rock, it is naturally called 
rock-oil, a term, to all appearance, sufficiently defi- 
nite to distinguish it from all other kinds of oil. 
Yet, instead of using this, we go to the Latin petra, 
'rock,' and olemn, ^oil,' and rock-oil appears as 
petroleum, — a word, the meaning of which must be 
learned before it is understood. Processes like these 
are constantly going on. In the case of scientific 
words they may be considered necessary; for it is of 
the utmost importance that a technical term should 
convey to the minds of all one idea, and but one 
idea, — that its signification should be imposed upon 
it, and not be suggested by it. This power of form- 
ing self -explaining compounds can, hovv^ever, hardly 
be said to be lost: it is rather a power held in 
abeyance, dwarfed by disuse, but by no means 
destroyed. 



Gains made by English, 1 1 1 

These changes may seem to have seriously impaired 
the value of the language. To a certain extent it 
may be admitted that they have been detrimental; 
but they have been far less so than they appear. It 
would, indeed, be a mistake to suppose that there 
have not been great gains made, as well as great 
losses suffered. If one method of expression is 
denied language, another is speedily found to take 
its place. If many words belonging to the Anglo- 
Saxon have disappeared from the tongue now spoken, 
their places have been more than supplied by impor- 
tations from foreign sources. These have now be- 
come so thoroughly identified with the words that 
have come from the original speech, that, in a large 
number of cases, no one but the special student is 
conscious of any difference in their origin. In par- 
ticular, the introduction of the Romance element in 
the fourteenth century had the immediate effect of 
adding to the language a large number of terms hav- 
ing precisely the same meaning as those already ex- 
isting. In many instances both have been retained, 
and a difference in meaning or use has gradually grown 
up. The readers of Scott's novel of ^^Ivanhoe " will 
recall the conversation between Wamba the fool and 
Gurth the swineherd, in which the former points out 
that swine and ox and calf go by their English names 
while living, but when served up as food, on the table 
of the Norman noble, become /^r^ and beef znA veal. 
Here is a clear distinction which has been made be- 
tween words that had originally the same sense. 



112 English Language. 

The same process has gone on in numerous other 
cases, and is still continuing to go on. In certain 
instances, such as yearly and annual, hearty and 
cordial, shire and county, answer and reply, buy and 
purchase, the distinction is hardly perceptible, or 
at least, definable. In others, like body and corpse, 
ghost and spirit, room and chamber, ship and vessel, 
spring diXidi fountain, it is either clearly recognizable 
already, or is on the way towards becoming plainly 
marked. It is only prejudice or ignorance that will 
deny that these importations have added immensely 
to the resources of the language. Especially is this 
true of its capability of representing delicate shades 
of thought, and the higher and more complex rela- 
tions which exist between the conceptions of the 
mind. In this respect the borrowed words stand in 
decided contrast to the native ones. To these latter 
is mainly left the representation of all deep feeling. 
The language of the reasoning faculties is, in con- 
sequence, largely different with us from the language 
of the emotional faculties, with the advantage to the- 
former, that it gains by this in precision, and to the 
latter, that it gains in vividness and power. 

Equally, the places of the lost Anglo-Saxon affixes 
have been supplied by affixes that have been bor- 
rowed from other languages, particularly the French, 
the Latin, and the Greek. These have been intro- 
duced in large numbers, and are freely used to form 
new words. For illustration, such prefixes as anti in 
anti-climax, dis in dis-possess, inter in i?iter-7nix, non 



Capacity of Expression, 113 

in non-essential, sub in sub-acid, super in super-natu- 
ral, trans in trans- Atlantic, and ultra in ultra-radi- 
cal can be applied to numerous words. The same 
statement is true of suffixes like the -al of nation-al, 
the -able of eat-able, the -ism of patriot-ism, the -/j"/ 
of organ-ist, and . the -/sd* of lion-ize. There are 
many other affixes that could be mentioned. Further- 
morCj the giving up of the original formative endings 
has been largely and perhaps wholly counterbalanced 
in Modern English by the facility with which the 
simple words themselves now pass from one part of 
speech to another. Thus black is an adjective; but 
it is used likewise as a noun and a verb. Again, 
stone is a noun; but it is also a verb, and may be 
used with the attributive sense of an adjective, as, for 
instance, in stone house and stone jar. The wide 
employment of the substantive in the manner last 
designated, which forms one of the most striking 
peculiarities of Modern English, far more than off- 
sets any loss due to the lack of facility in forming 
self-explaining compounds. 

There result, indeed, from the union of the foreign 
and native elements, a wealth of phraseology and a 
many-sidedness in English, which give it in these 
respects a superiority over any other modern culti- 
vated tongue. German is strictly a pure Teutonic 
speech; but no native speaker of it claims for it any 
superiority over the English as an instrument of ex- 
pression, while many are willing to concede its infe- 
riority. At any rate, the character of the language, 



114 English Language. 

whether for good or ill, was fixed for all succeeding 
time at the beginning of the Middle English period. 
We may grieve over it, or we may rejoice over it; but 
we cannot change it. What it then became under 
the hand of the great writers who moulded it, that 
it has since continued essentially to be, and that it 
will be certain to remain so long as it lasts, in its 
present form, as a spoken and written tongue. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE THREE DIALECTS OF EARLY ENGLISH, AND 
THE RISE OF THE MIDLAND. 

It has already been remarked that the dialect in 
which Chaucer wrote became the language of litera- 
ture, and has remained as such until this day. What 
was this dialect? How came it to be employed by 
him? What was its relation to other dialects, or to 
the ancient tongue from which, in a certain sense, it 
may be said to have descended? The answers to 
these questions cannot be fully understood without 
having clearly in mind the circumstances under which 
this dialect originated, and the conditions under which 
it came to the front. Here, then, is a favorable point 
to recapitulate briefly but connectedly, what has been 
said elsewhere at length but in scattered passages. 

Of the various dialects existing during the Anglo- 
Saxon period, that is, from 450 to 1150, the West- 
Saxon was the one that attained to literary supremacy. 
Enough exists of the form of language spoken in the 
ancient kingdom of Northumbria to make it certain 
that the speech of the North of England varied in 
many respects from that of the South. But, as the 
"5 



1 1 6 English Language, 

West-Saxon is the only one of the earliest EngHsh dia- 
lects that can be said to have both maintained and 
preserved a literature, it is for us the literary Anglo- 
Saxon, the sole remaining type of our tongue in its 
original classical form. But from this position of su- 
premacy the Norman Conquest had the speedy effect 
of displacing it. After that event its special forms 
and inflections, its peculiarities of grammatical con- 
struction, could not be long looked upon as the standard 
of correct writing and speaking. Such a standard 
could only be maintained by an educated class ; and 
the attention of the educated classes was from this 
time turned exclusively either to Latin or to French. 
The AVest-Saxon, as an inevitable consequence, sank 
to the level of the other dialects : it had no longer 
any special pre-eminence of its own. Henceforward 
he who wrote in the native language wrote in that 
form of it with which he was most famihar. He wrote 
in the dialect of the district of country in which he 
had been brought up, or in which he dwelt. As^ 
therefore, nothing existed anywhere that could be 
regarded as authority, the forces that tend to bring 
about diversity of speech were sure to gain strength 
more rapidly than those which tend to bring about 
uniformity. 

The Three Early English Dialects. — During these 
centuries, therefore, — the twelfth, the thirteenth, and 
the fourteenth, — it is to be borne in mind that there 
was in no sense a national tongue. There existed a 
number of dialects, each one of which had as much 



Early English Dialects, 117 

right as any of the others to be called the English 
language. The points of similarity were naturally far 
greater in number and in importance than the points 
of dissimilarity. In spite of that, the latter were suffi- 
cient to make the variations between these dialects 
observable by all. Especially marked was the differ- 
ence between the speech of the North and that of the 
South of England. This at once came to the surface 
as soon as the pressure was withdrawn that had brought 
all the previously existing dialects under the supremacy 
of the West-Saxon. 

This particular difference had existed from the 
earliest period ; but it only became prominent when 
all dialects were brought to a common level of com- 
parison by sharing in a common degradation. But 
little more than half a century had passed after the 
Conquest, when the chronicler, William of Malmesbury 
(1095-1148), asserted that the speech of the Nor- 
thumbrians, especially at York, sounded so rude and 
harsh to the men of the South, that the latter were 
scarcely able to understand it. Similar testimony to 
this divergence is borne by Giraldus Cambrensis, a 
scholar who flourished not much later. About 1194 
he finished a work in Latin, giving an account of 
Wales. In the course of it he incidentally pointed 
out a fact which is now universally recognized as true. 
He remarked that the language of Southern England 
was more ancient in its character than that of the 
northern parts, and much closer to the original tongue 
as preserved in writing. 



ii8 English Language, 

Upon this point we have again precise and positive 
testimoiiy from Higden, the writer of the first half of 
the fourteenth century who has already been quoted 
on this question of language. He asserted distinctly 
the existence of three leading dialects in his time. 
These are his statements^ as translated by Trevisa : — 

" Also Englysch men, ]?ey3 hy hadde fram \>^ bygynnyng 
)?re maner speche, Sou}?eron, Nor)?eron, and Myddel speche 
(in >e myddel of ]?e lond), as hy come of )?re maner people 
of Germania; noseless, by commyxstion and mellyng, furst 
Vv'i]? Danes and afterward wij? Normans, in menye J^e contray 
longage ys apeyred, and some vse]5 strange wlaffyng, chyteryng, 
harryng and garryng, grisbittyng. [By these five words Trevisa 
translates the Latin boatus et garritus\ . . . Also, of }?e for- 
seyde Saxon tonge l?at ys deled a ]?re, and ys abyde scars- 
lych with feaw vplondysch men, and ys gret wondur; for men 
of l?e est wi]? men of }?e west, as hyt were vndur j^e same 
party of heuene, acordej? more in sounyng of speche j^an men 
of the nor]? wij? men of the sou}?; }>erfore hyt ys }?at Mercij, 
J^at bu}? men of Myddel Engelond, as hyt were parteners of 
]?e endes, vndurstondej? betre )?e syde longages, Nor)?eron and 
Sou]?eron, than Ncrj^eron and Sou>eron vndurstondej? ey)?er 
o>er." 1 

1 " Also Englishmen, though they had from the beginning three 
kinds of speech, Southern, Northern, and Midland speech (in the 
middle of the land), as they came from three kinds of people of 
Germany, nevertheless, by mixing and mingling, first with Danes 
and afterward with Normans, in many the native language is cor- 
rupted, and some use strange babbling, chattering, growling and 
snarling, teeth-grinding . . . Also, in regard to the aforesaid Saxon 
tongue, that is divided into three, and has remained [in use] with 
[a] few country-men, there is great wonder; for men of the East 
with men of the West, as it were under the same portion of heaven, 
agree more in the sound of [their] speech than men of the North 
with men of the South ; therefore it is that the Mercians, that are 



Early English Dialects. 1 19 

The extant writings of this period bear ample 
witness to the truth of Higden's statement. There 
were, especially during the thirteenth and fourteenth 
centuries, and even earlier, three great divisions of 
English speech. The differences between these were 
so pronounced, that the dwelling-place of a man within 
certain limits could be immediately told by his lan- 
guage. The distinction is traceable now without diffi- 
culty in the works that have been handed down. It 
was as fully recognized then. Chaucer, for illustration, 
wrote in the Midland dialect of the eastern counties, 
and exemplified regularly in his writings all its peculiar 
grammatical characteristics. For instance, he forms 
the third person singular of the present tense of the 
verb in -th, the plural in -en or -e. Consequently he 
would say, for example, he loveth and they loven or 
they love. But in '^The Reeve's Tale '' he introduces 
two characters who are described as coming from a 
town "• far in the North '* ; and the special peculiarities 
of that dialect are designedly represented in the forms 
they use. In the language put into their mouths the 
third person singular of the present tense ends in -s, 
as generally in Modern English : the plural has like- 
wise the same termination. Other characteristics of 
the speech of the North occur such as the use of a for 
o, as in ga^ ham{e), hald, nat, sang; of /// for to ; 
and of sal for shal Specifically, also, a variety of the 

men of Middle England, as it were partners of the ends, understand 
better the border languages, Northern and Southern, than Northern 
or Southern understands each one the other," 



120 EnglisJi Language. 

Northern dialect is exemplified, in which is is found 
in the first and second persons of the present tense of 
the substantive verb. The following lines show speci- 
mens of all these peculiarities : — 

Oure manciple,^ I hope,- he will be deed,^ 
Swa^ werkes ay the wanges^ in his heed; 
And forthy^ is I come, and eek Alayn, 
To grynde oure corn, and carie it ham agayn. 

Yit saugh I nevere, by my fader kyn, 
How that the hopur wagges til and fra. 

I is as ill a miller as are ye. 

I have herd seyd, ' Man sal taa ' of twa thynges, 
Slyk ^ as he fyndes, or taa " slyk - as he brynges.' 

No student of the earher form of our language 
would think of attributing these lines to any other 
dialect than that of the North. Their introduction into 
a tale written in the ]!\Iidland speech shows that the 
distinctive peculiarities of each were fully understood 
then. The divergence, indeed, was not only generally 
recognized, it was also so deeply marked, that it may 
almost be said that works composed in either of the 
two extreme dialects required to be translated into the 
other in order to be understood. A well-known early 
English poem, the ^' Cursor ^lundi," v\'as written about 
the end of the thirteenth century in the language of 
the North. One story in it was taken, however, from 



1 Purveyor. 


2 Expect. 


3 Be deed = die. 


4 So. 


o Cheek-teeth. 


6 Therefore. 


7 Take. 


8 Such. 





Early English Dialects. I2i 

a work composed in the dialect of the South ; and the 
author of the ^' Cursor Mundi " speaks of the latter 
speech in words which would almost lead one to think 
that he looked upon it as a foreign tongue ; for, after 
mentioning his authority, he goes on to say : — 

" In a writt this ilke I fand, 
Himself it wroght I understand. 
In Suthrin Englijs was it draun, 
And I haue turned it till vr aun 
Langage of the northren lede, 
That can nan other Englis rede." ^ 

Lines 20059-64. 

Geographical Limits of the Three Dialects. — The 

geographical limits of these divisions of EngUsh 
speech may be roughly stated as follows: i. The 
Northern dialect, as the lineal descendant of the 
Northumbrian dialect of Anglo-Saxon, covered about 
the same extent of territory; that is, the region 
stretching from the Humber on the south to the 
Frith of Forth on the north, and bounded by the 
Pennine Mountains on the west. It consequently 
included the present counties of York, Durham, and 
Northumberland in England, and the Lowlands of 
Scotland, except in the south-west. During the four 

1 " In a writing this same [thing] I found; 
He himself composed it, I understand. 
In Southern English was it composed, 
And I have turned it to our own 
Language of the northern people, 
That can read no other English." 



122 English Language. 

teenth and fifteenth centuries, and later^ it was, how- 
ever, making its way throughout the whole of Scot- 
land, and slowly supplanting the native Celtic tongue, 
though it never succeeded in doing this completely. 
Still, at a comparatively early period, it had advanced 
far to the north along the eastern coast. The only 
one of the various sub-dialects of the Northern dialect, 
that became a literary speech, was the Lowland Scotch. 
But after the union, in 1603, of Scotland and England 
under a common king, that itself sank to the position 
of a dialect of standard English. 

2. The Midland dialect occupied the central coun- 
ties from the Humber to the Thames, and the district 
west of the Pennine range of hills. It was doubtless 
the descendant of the Mercian of the Anglo-Saxon 
period which covered substantially the same territory. 
From the outset it was divided into two distinct vari- 
eties, called respectively from the regions of country 
wherein they were spoken, the East Midland and the 
West Midland. Of these, the former stretched over a 
much larger district, and was altogether more impor- 
tant both for its linguistic influence and for the char- 
acter of the literature that was written in it. 

3. The Southern stretched from the Thames to the 
English Channel. It also extended to portions of the 
western counties north of the Thames, particularly 
Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, and Worcestershire. 
It was a direct descendant of the West-Saxon, the 
classical language of our fathers, though it occasionally 
exhibits forms for which there is nothing correspond- 



Eai'Iy English Dialects, 123 

ing to be found in the monuments that have been pre- 
served of the earliest speech. Kentish may have been 
originally very different ; but as we find it in the Old 
English period, it is only a strongly marked variety 
of the Southern dialect. 

It is not to be understood, indeed, that there were 
not variations, and great variations, everywhere within 
these lines. As there was then no uniform standard 
English, so there was no uniform Northern, or Mid- 
land, or Southern dialect. Under each one of these 
was included a number of sub-dialects, with special 
pecuHarities of their own, and often confined to com- 
paratively small districts. Thus the / is and the thou 
is, given above in Chaucer's representation of the 
Northern dialect, would be a grammatical form true 
of only a portion of the region covered by that partic- 
ular kind of Enghshc It would be very far from being 
true of all of it, and probably of most of it. All, 
therefore, that is meant to be implied is that within 
these three great divisions the differences were slight 
compared with the resemblances. 

It was the language of the North and that of the 
South, as is stated by Higden, that stood the farthest 
apart. Between these two wavered the dialect of the 
Midland counties ; sometimes and in some places in- 
clining to the one, at other times and in other places 
inchning to the other. Each one of the three called 
itself the EngHsh speech, but did not deny the title 
to the others. Each one of the three also acted upon 
the speech of that other with which it came into 



124 English Language. 

immediate contact. Thus the East Midland affected 
the dialect of the South, and the Southern in turn 
affected the East Midland. For instance, the South- 
ern plural ending in -th of the present tense — as they 
hopeth — made its appearance in works written in the 
Eastern Midland. Again, the Northern termination 
in -s of the second and third person singular of 
the present tense is often found in the West Mid- 
land. Accordingly we should have, for illustration, in 
this speech, thou gives and he gives in place of the 
Eastern Midland and Southern thou givest and he 
giveth. 

But one important thing these dialects had in com- 
mon. The influx of French words into their vocabu- 
lary was about the same in each, and occurred at 
about the same period. On whatever other points 
they differed, here they agreed. The Norman Con- 
quest did not bring Scotland under the sway of a for- 
eign race, nor were the Scottish Lowlands parcelled 
out among a body of nobles who spoke a strange 
tongue ; yet French words penetrated at about the 
same time, and to about the same extent, not only 
into the Enghsh spoken on both sides of the Humber, 
which divided the Northern dialect from the Midland, 
but also into the English spoken on both sides of the 
Tweed, which divided the two kingdoms. In the 
fourteenth century the language of Barbour, the Arch- 
deacon of Aberdeen, shows as much the trace of 
French influence as does that of his contemporary 
Chaucer, the controller of the port of London. The 



Differences betiveen tJie Dialects. 125 

introduction into our tongue of the Romance element 
was in no sense peculiar to the speech of any one 
dialect or any one district of country ; it was a gen- 
eral linguistic movement, which extended to every 
place where English was spoken at all. 

Differences between the Dialects. — It is obviously 
the differences between the two extreme dialects that 
are most marked, and to these the attention will be 
mainly directed. There was, in the first place, one 
great radical distinction between the speech of the 
North and of the South. The latter was extremely 
conservative in holding on to its grammatical inflec- 
tions ; the former let them go rapidly. In the general 
break-up of the Anglo-Saxon that followed the Con- 
quest, it was impossible to preserve the speech of any 
portion of the country from violent changes and cor- 
ruptions and losses. These effects showed themselves 
in the Southern dialect, but much less there than in 
either of the two others. It clung as firmly as it well 
could to the original forms and inflections ; and 
whatever it gave up, it gave up reluctantly. For 
evidence of this, we have a succession of literary 
monuments, which establish the slowness of the change 
that took place. 

We have no such means for tracing the linguistic 
history of the North as we have that of the South ; 
for, from about the end of the tenth century to the 
end of the thirteenth, no works were written in the 
language spoken in or descended from that spoken 
in the ancient Northumbria : or, if written, they have 



126 English Language. 

not been preserved. But it is evident that the devel- 
opment of the Northern dialect was in the sharpest 
contrast to that of the Southern. It abandoned its 
inflections without hesitation. The works produced in 
it in the fourteenth century show, that, in its rejection 
of grammatical forms, it had even then frequently gone 
farther than the EngHsh we use has now, or, at any 
rate, had shown a disposition to go farther. One or 
two illustrations are all that will be needed at this point. 
The ending -s of the genitive is sometimes dropped : 
7nan saul appears for ' man's soul.' So is sometimes 
the ending -s of the third person singular of the pres- 
ent, and the -ed of the preterite, seen in such expres- 
sions as he think, ^ h,e thinks,' and in he cumand, 'he 
commanded.' In fact, in the fourteenth century the 
Northern dialect had moved so far to the form now 
exhibited by INIodern English, that a work written at 
that time, if printed in the existing orthography, would 
present but few and slight difficulties to the ordinary 
reader, so far as inflections and grammatical construc- 
tions are concerned. 

It was in respect to slowness or swiftness of change 
that the great characteristic difference manifested itself 
between the speech of the North and of the South. 
In some cases as a result of this, in others entirely 
independent of it, the two dialects showed marked 
divergencies. These concern partly the spelling, partly 
the vocabulary, and partly the grammar. A few illus- 
trations will be given to make this statement perfectly 
clear ; those peculiarities being chosen by preference 



Differences between the Dialects. 127 

which have maintamed themselves in Modern Eng- 
Hsh, either in the standard speech or in the Scottish 
dialect. 

First, as regards difference of orthography. The 
Southern dialect used the vowel 0^ where the North 
preferred a. Thus in Early Enghsh^ land and lond, 
hom(/) and ham{e), would indicate the two regions 
where these particular forms prevailed. We see this 
further exemplified in the Anglo-Saxon pronoun hwa, 
which in the South became who, and in the North 
wha. Again, the Southern dialect was inclined to use 
the letter v for /, a tendency which was unknown to 
the North; thus the Anglo-Saxon fox, a ^fox,' and 
fixe?t, a ' female fox,' became in the Southern dialect 
vox and vixen ; and Modern Enghsh has retained the 
original form of the one, and the altered form of the 
other. Furthermore, the South was apt to turn the 
Anglo-Saxon c into ch, especially before the vowels e. 
i, and y, and at the end of a syllable ; whereas this 
letter was represented in the North by k. Accord- 
ingly, the Anglo-Saxon circe, ' church,' became in the 
Southern dialect chirche, in the Northern kirk, still 
preserved in the Scottish dialect. Another illustration 
will be found in the case of the Anglo-Saxon verb 
secan, 'to seek.' This appeared respectively in the 
speech of the two regions as seche{n)' 2X\A. seke{ii). 
In the simple verb we now use the Northern form 
seek, but in the compound beseech we follow the South. 

Secondly, as regards difference of vocabulary. The 
Northern dialect adopted a number of Scandina- 



128 English Langitage. 

vian words, brought in by the invasion and settle- 
ment of the Norsemen. Comparatively few of these 
fomid their way into the South ; though some of them 
were adopted into the speech of the Midland dialects, 
especially in those counties which had fallen under 
the sway of the Danes. Into these latter, indeed, 
they may have been introduced independently, and 
from this source have been transmitted to Modern 
English. In this way we can explain the early and 
wide use of such Norse words as ///, bounds ^ ready, 
destined for,' and fro in phrases such as ^to and 
fro.' The Northern local dialects naturally retain 
these Scandinavian words in somewhat large num- 
bers j as, for one instance that will do for many, the 
word gar, ^to cause,' may be adduced. This comes 
directly from the Norse verb gora. 

Thirdly, as regards grammatical differences. In this 
respect the general tendency, already mentioned, of 
the North to drop inflections altogether, and of the 
South to retain them as long as possible, formed nat- 
urally the great cardinal distinction between the two 
dialects. But besides this there are certain character- 
istic differences in the inflection itself. One of the 
most marked is in the plural of the present tense of 
the verb. In the Northern dialect this either ended 
in -s, or dropped the termination entirely. In the 
Southern the regular ending was -th. In this matter 
ihe former followed the Northumbrian dialect of 
Anglo-Saxon, the latter the West-Saxon. Men say 
would therefore be represented respectively by men 



Differences between the Dialects. 129 

says and men sayeth} These peculiarities lasted down 
in the literary language to a comparatively late period, 
though ordinarily not indicated in modern editions, as 
the text is, in this particular, silently changed when- 
ever possible. The usage can be seen in the following 
illustrations : — 

O father Abraham, what these Christians are 
Whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect 
The thoughts of others ! 

Shakspeare, Merchant of Venice, act i. scene 3. 

A board groaning under the heavy burden of the beasts that 
cheweth the cud. — Fletcher, Woman-Hater , act i. scene 2. 

Another marked grammatical difference was in the 
plural of the noun. In Old EngUsh, -s had become 
the regular termination of this number for all the dia- 
lects. But the Southern still continued to retain many 
plurals in -en. This form was based upon the Anglo- 
Saxon plural in -an^ which originally belonged to 
about half the nouns in the language, but exhibits in 
our present prose speech but one genuine survival in 
oxen. This termination, however, was sometimes 
added in the Southern dialect to many nouns which 
etymologically had no right to it. From it in conse- 
quence we have Modern English plurals like brethren 
and children, (A. S. broSru and cildru), which in a 
strict sense were at the outset corruptions. The not 
uncommon dialectic form housen is another illustra- 
tion of the fondness for this ending ; in Anglo-Saxon 

1 See Part II., sec, 331. ^ lb., sees. 27 and 57. 



130 English Language, 

the plural is the same as the singular. This termina- 
tion in -en was, in truth, sometimes given in the 
Southern dialect to nouns ending originally in -as^ of 
which the representative was strictly -es. For example, 
we sometimes find kingen instead of the regular kinges, 
' kings.' On the other hand, the Northern dialect 
had scarcely any plurals in -en. In fact, the number 
ordinarily found in it comprised only the four words, 
eghen, ^eyes,' hoseii, ^hose,' shoo?iy ^ shoes,' and 
oxe7t. 

Between these two dialects stood that of the Mid- 
land counties, not merely in respect to position, but in 
respect to language also. It partook, to a large 
extent, of the peculiarities of each ; while in some 
particulars it was independent of both. Many ques- 
tions connected with its origin and development will 
remain unsettled, because some of its distinguishing 
characteristics must have come from a dialect or 
dialects existing in the Anglo-Saxon period, which, 
however widely employed in colloquial speech, left 
no trace of itself or of themselves in written literature. 
Moreover, while it had from the very beginning an 
independent existence and growth, it could not fail to 
be affected largely by the two dialects on each side of 
it. 

Thus, as we have seen, in the fourteenth century 
three great dialects existed in Britain, each calling 
itself Enghsh, each possessing a hterature of its own, 
and each seemingly having about the same chance to 
be adopted as the representative national tongue. Of 



Differences between the Dialects, 131 

these three it was the Midland that became the lan- 
guage of literature, — the language we speak and write 
to-day. Its supremacy has involved, as one result, 
the degradation of the other two, with all their va- 
rieties, to the condition, in general, of local dialects, 
maintaining themselves as the speech of the rude and 
uneducated only, and destined, with the greater spread 
of education, to ultimate extinction. The question 
naturally arises. How did this result come about? 

There were several circumstances that concurred 
to give predominance to the Midland dialect. In the 
first place, it was in its nature a compromise between 
the two found on each side of it, and could, therefore, 
be much more readily adopted by both than could 
either by the other. We have already had a direct 
statement to this effect by a writer of the fourteenth 
century.^ In the second place, it covered a larger 
extent of territory than either of the others. In par- 
ticular, the strength of the Northern dialect as a rival 
was much weakened by the fact that no small portion 
of the region in which it was spoken had from an 
early period been separated from England, and been 
placed under the rule of the king of the Scots. In the 
third place, the Midland was the speech of the district 
in which the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge 
were situated. Accordingly, all the powerful linguistic 
influences that flowed from these two great centres of 
higher education were constantly at work to extend 
the supremacy of the form of speech heard in them. 

1 See page ii3. 



132 English Language, 

In the fourth place, it was the Midland that became 
the tongue mainly employed at the court and the 
capital, as the French was gradually displaced from 
its position as the language of social intercourse. 
This last was an influence, which, powerful as it is at 
any period, was far more powerful then than it is 
almost possible for us now to conceive. 

All of these reasons contributed to give the Midland 
-special prominence as the dialect destined to become 
the representative one of the whole nation. Yet, 
strong as these various agencies were in them.selves, 
they were insufficient to establish its supremacy over 
the rest, and cause them to sink into subordinate posi- 
tions, of which not only others would be conscious, 
but which would be acknowledged as such by them- 
selves. No really national language could exist until 
a literature had been created which would be admired 
and studied by all who could read, and taken as a 
model by all who could write. It was only a man of 
genius that could hft up one of these dialects into a 
pre-eminence over the rest, or could ever give to the 
scattered forces existing in any one of them the unity 
and vigor of life. This was the work that Chaucer 
did. He it was that first showed to all men the re- 
sources of the language, its capacity of representing 
with discrimination all shades of human thought, and 
of conveying with power all manifestations of human 
feeling. His choice of the Midland, or rather the 
fact of his writing in it, raised it at once into a position 
of superiority which was never afterwards disputed. 



Differences between the Dialects, 133 

His productions, scattered everywhere, unconsciously 
affected the speech of all who read, and were con- 
sciously looked upon by all who set out to write as 
the authoritative standard of expression. The words 
and grammatical forms he used, the methods of syntac- 
tical construction he followed, became the ones gen- 
erally adopted by his successors. With him, indeed, 
began the exercise of that great conservative restraint 
which literature throws about language, which arrests 
all sudden changes, and which, so long as it operates 
unimpaired, renders revolution or anarchy in the speech 
an impossibility. 

It has already been stated that the Midland dialect 
was not altogether uniform ; and that it has been 
divided into that of the Eastern and of the Western 
counties. It was in the former of these that Chaucer 
wrote. To speak with absolute precision, it is there- 
fore to be said that the cultivated English language, 
in which nearly all EngUsh literature of value has been 
written, sprang directly from the East Midland division 
of the Midland dialect, and especially from that variety 
of the East Midland which was spoken at London and 
the region immediately to the north of it. To that it 
owes the forms of its words and its leading grammati- 
cal characteristics, though in these respects it has 
likewise been influenced in particulars by the speech 
both of the North and of the South. 

The Scotch Dialect. — But, while these three dialects 
were in use in England, it was the Northern alone that 
was spoken in Scotland; and, as the Scotch is the 



134 English Language. 

only dialect of English that can be said to have a liter- 
ature of its own, a brief account of it is here in place. 
This Northern dialect had in that region gradually 
spread itself on every side from its original centre in 
the south, had crossed the Forth, and, steadily pressing 
back the Celtic tongues, had, in the fourteenth cen- 
tury made its way along the coast as far as the Moray 
Frith. Even had the speech of England and Scotland 
been precisely the same in the beginning, the political 
separation of the two countries, at a period when no 
literary standard existed anywhere, would of itself 
have been almost certain to develop, in process of 
time, differences between the tongues used in both. 
This inevitable divergence was largely increased by 
the fact that in the one country the Midland dialect 
established its supremacy and became the language of 
literature, while in the other, the Northern dialect was 
the only one ever employed at all, either in the lan- 
guage of literature or of common life. Accordingly, 
the speech of Scotland had a linguistic development 
in some measure independent of that found south of 
the Tweed. 

It is to be borne in mind, however, that Scotch, as 
an epithet appHed to speech, meant originally the 
Gaelic of the Celtic inhabitants of Northern Britain. 
Its modern sense, as applied to one dialect of our lan- 
guage, was then not known. What we now call the 
Scotch tongue is nothing but a variety of Northern 
English. Furthermore, it was invariably called English 
by the men who wrote in it during the fourteenth and 



The Scotch Dialect. 135 

fifteenth centuries, and generally by those who wrote 
in it during the sixteenth. During this last period, 
however, the term EngUsh began to be disused, and 
instead it was sometimes designated as the Scotch 
tongue, as opposed to the Enghsh. This would un- 
doubtedly have become the estabHshed practice had 
the two peoples remained under separate governments ; 
but the union of the crowns by the accession, in 1603, 
of James VI. of Scotland to the English throne as 
James I., caused the tongue of the smaller country to 
lose its independent position. After that date it came 
to be considered and called the Scotch dialect of the 
English language. 

•Scotch Hterature may be said to begin with John 
Barbour, Archdeacon of Aberdeen, who died in 1395. 
He was the author of several works ; but the one by 
which he is principally known is the historical poem 
called the '' Brus," which, as he himself tells us, he 
finished in 1375. It contains between thirteen and 
fourteen thousand lines, and celebrates the deeds of 
Robert Bruce, who successfully defended the indepen- 
dence of Scotland against the English. Barbour was 
followed by Andrew Wyntoun, prior of the monastery 
of St. Serfs Inch in Loch Leven. Between 1420 and 
1424, he wrote a metrical history entitled the " Orygy- 
nale Crony kil of Scotland." Far the best work of this 
earlier period is the production of James I., who 
reigned nominally from 1406 to 1437, and actually 
ruled the country from 1424 to 1437. It is a poem 
of nearly fourteen hundred lines, and is called " The 



136 English Language, 

Kinges Quair."^ It was written in 1423, while he 
was in captivity in England^ in honor of the daughter 
of the Earl of Somerset, who afterwards became his 
wife. 

The metrical histories of Barbour and Andrew of 
Wyntoun were continued in the latter half of the fif- 
teenth century by Henry the Minstrel, or Blind Harry, 
as he is more commonly called. In a poem of twelve 
thousand lines he celebrated the exploits, real or 
imaginary, of the Scottish hero, William Wallace. A 
contemporary of his was Robert Henryson of Dunferm- 
line, who wrote a number of poetical compositions. 
Among his writings may be mentioned a collection of 
thirteen fables, and " The Testament of Cresseid,"-a 
sequel to the ^' Troilus and Cressida " of Chaucer. The 
greatest name of all this early period is William Dunbar, 
who flourished from about 1460 to about 1520. His 
works are very various in their character, embracing a 
number of lyrical, allegorical, and satirical pieces. Con- 
temporary with him was Gawin Douglas, Bishop of Dun- 
keld, whose most famous production was his translation 
of Vergil's "^neid," with prologues of his own prefixed 
to each book. But perhaps the poet of the sixteenth 
century who was then most widely read by all classes 
was Sir David Lindsay. His popularity was largely 
due to his attacks on abuses that prevailed both in 
church and state, and his works are credited with 
having exerted considerable influence in forwarding 
the cause of the Reformation. 

1 Quair^ ' a book ' ; Modern English ^uire. 



The Scotch Dialect, 137 

These are the most important of the Scotch authors 
who flourished during this early period. The Htera- 
ture written in the Scotch dialect, after the union of 
the crowns, is often of a high order, particularly in 
lyric poetry. Much of it is characterized by a degree 
of excellence to which the literature before the union 
can rarely lay claim. This latter, indeed, has received 
great praise from some ; but to most readers the 
works belonging to it are apt to seem uninteresting, 
and they are certainly very long. In spite of the 
merit of occasional passages, and even of occasional 
poems, it must be said of early Scottish literature, 
that, taken as a whole, it requires patience to read it, 
and patriotism to admire it. 

The particular variety of the Northern dialect which 
was adopted in literature while Scotland remained an 
independent kingdom was that spoken in Edinburgh 
and its neighborhood. Here, as in most countries, 
the speech of the court and capital became the stand- 
ard speech. From the outset it was exposed to two 
influences that did not affect the language of England 
itself. There was, first, the tongue of the Celtic 
inhabitants, who formed so large a proportion of the 
population subject to the Scottish monarch. With 
this it came into immediate contact, and from it 
naturally borrowed some words. Secondly, there was 
for centuries a more or less close alliance between 
France and Scotland, brought about by their common 
hostility to England. Men from one country were 
often engaged in the service of the king of the other. 



138 English Language, 

Bodies of French troops were occasionally stationed 
in Scotland. Hence it was that from that tongue 
were introduced into the Scotch dialect a number of 
words never used, either in conversation or in writing, 
south of the Tweed. 

Furthermore, the Scotch language of literature was 
affected to some degree by the literary language of its 
more powerful neighbor. The influence of Chaucer, 
both on style and manner of treatment, is very notice- 
able in the compositions of several of the early Scotch 
poets. It is, indeed, a signal illustration of the power 
over the development of a language exerted by an 
author of great genius, that many forms characteristic 
of the Midland dialect, but foreign to the Northern, 
were introduced from his works into the variety of the 
latter dialect in which early Scotch literature was com- 
posed, though they seem never to have maintained 
themselves there. The superiority of English litera- 
ture could not, indeed, fail to make itself felt in the 
case of tongues so nearly alhed. Still, had the two 
countries continued to be separate nationalities, differ- 
ences in speech would have become thoroughly estab- 
lished ; and in the island of Great Britain there would 
have been, perhaps, two sister languages as distinct 
from one another as are, for instance, Spanish and 
Portuguese. But, as has been pointed out, the union 
of the two crowns at the beginning of the seventeenth 
century reduced the Scottish, from the position of a 
tongue independent of the English, to that of a dialect 
of it. Having no longer any common literary stand- 



The Scotch Dialect. 139 

ard within its borders, it speedily diverged into a 
number of local dialects. Each of these has peculiari- 
ties of its own, due to its surroundings, and all of 
them, when used in literature, have been largely 
affected by the influence of the standard English. 
No small share of the poetry composed in what is 
called the Scotch dialect is Scotch rather in name 
than in reality. It is, in fact, literary Enghsh clothed 
in Scottish spelHng, and rendered only a little more 
strange by the introduction of a few provincial words. 
Of course, in such a statement, it is only the written 
language that is considered, not the spoken ; for the 
Scotch pronunciation varies widely in some respects 
from that of the classical tongue. But this adoption 
of forms and grammatical constructions belonging to 
the English of literature shows, that, even in this 
peculiar home of the Northern dialect, the Midland 
has, here as elsewhere, proved too powerful for its 
ancient rival. 



CHAPTER VII. 

CHANGES IN THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PERIOD 
(1350-1550). 

It is with the Middle English period that English 
literature in the limited but strictly proper sense of 
the word may be said to begin. The production of 
writings of a character so high as to be recognized 
everywhere as authoritative standards of expression 
could not fail to have an immediate effect upon the 
future of the language. It is the one great result 
of the influences now brought to bear upon it, that, 
from the end of the fourteenth century, our tongue 
has pursued an orderly development. It suffers 
changes, and, indeed, constant changes, both in 
grammar and in vocabulary; if it did not, it would 
no longer be a living speech. But these changes 
take place within certain well-defined limits; they 
require the consent of vast numbers, sometimes of 
generations; they are spread over great spaces of 
time. The conservative and restraining influence 
of literature over language necessarily grows more 
powerful with every successive century, because liter- 
ature itself is read and studied by constantly increas- 



Changes in the Middle English Period, 141 

ing numbers. The changes that have taken place J 
during the five hundred years that have gone by since 
the beginning of the Middle English period bear not 
the slightest comparison, either in extent or impor- 
tance, with those that took place during the two hun- 
dred years before that period. How comparatively 
insignificant the former are has already been fully 
exemplified in the extract which has been given from 
Chaucer, with the ancient spelling in one case pre- 
served, and in the other case with it modernized.^ 
An examination of these shows clearly that it is the 
difference of orthography, far more than the differ- 
ence of vocabulary and of construction, that makes 
the language of the fourteenth century seem difficult. / 

English, therefore, from this time forth, enters 
upon an entirely new history. In order to compre- 
hend clearly the character of the transitions through 
which it has gone during the past ^n^ hundred years, 
it is necessary to have well in mind one or two prin- 
ciples that underlie the development of language. 
It has already been pointed out, that, in the speech 
of rude and ignorant men, grammatical changes 
take place rapidly; whereas, under ordinary cir- 
cumstances, few new words are added to the vocab- 
ulary. This fact becomes very noticeable when a 
cultivated tongue ceases to be used any longer by 
the educated, and is heard only from the mouths of 
the illiterate. The variations which spring up under 
such circumstances are easy of observation, because 

1 Pages 100, loi. 



142 English Language. 

we have an ideal standard preserved by which to 
compare the present with the past. We have seen 
this fully exemplified in the breaking up of the liter- 
ary Anglo-Saxon and its transition into the unculti- 
vated Old English. Inflectional forms were largely 
confounded and discarded, and syntax underwent 
violent alteration. On the other hand, little was 
added to the vocabulary of the speech, much was taken 
away from it. Words necessary to convey the knowl- 
edge or to express the feelings of all were retained; 
but the special language of the educated, the language 
of literature so far as it is distinct from the language 
of common life, disappeared very largely. 

The precise reverse of this condition of things is 
true of any language in which is embodied the collo- 
quial and written speech of a cultivated people. In it 
no sudden alterations can be made in the grammar, 
because great literary models have given permanent 
form and character to that which already exists. Nor 
can violent alterations ever be made without a revo- 
lution mighty enough to upset the language itself in 
its existing form. While, therefore, in a cultivated 
speech^ changes in inflection and syntax do take 
place, they invariably take place slowly and on a 
small scale; and, if they happen to attract observa- 
tion at the time, they never succeed in establishing 
themselves without a struggle. On the other hand, 
the vocabulary is constantly increasing. The domain 
of knowledge is always widening; and new terms are 
constantly needed to express the new facts which the 



Changes in the Middle English Period. 143 

many-sided activity of the race has gathered, and the 
new ideas it has conceived. An existing vocabulary, 
therefore, cannot for any long period satisfy the de- 
mand made upon it; or, in other words, a living 
tongue can never become what is called fixed until 
the men who speak it get to be intellectually dead. 
There is, in consequence, an absolute necessity resting 
upon every generation of doing one or all of three 
things. It must either develop new words from exist- 
ing roots, or it must impose new senses upon words 
already in use, or it must borrow strange words from 
foreign tongues. In modern cultivated languages it 
will be found that these three agencies are in active 
operation side by side. 

From the beginning of the Middle English period 
till the present time, both 6f these principles have 
been fully illustrated. On the one hand, there has 
been aversion to grammatical change, with conse- 
quent slowness in its adoption; on the other, there 
has been exhibited a marked fondness for new or 
foreign words, and facility in their formation or in- 
troduction. From the fourteenth to the beginning 
of the seventeenth century the aversion to the intro- 
duction of new grammatical forms or constructions 
was by no means so decided as it has been since the 
latter date. Literature during this early period had 
not begun to exert its full restraining effect upon the 
users of language. In truth, the standard speech was 
not then so indisputably established, that the inflec- 
tions of different dialects did not continue to strive 



144 English Language . 

with one another to be adopted in it as the correct 
or favorite form. In some cases even, it was not 
definitely settled till the seventeenth century or later, 
which one of two grammatical endings the literary 
language would prefer. 

No such feelings have prevailed or could prevail 
in regard to the introduction of new words. That 
would depend almost wholly upon the real or fancied 
needs of the users of language. Hence it is that 
far the largest accessions have taken place during 
the Modern English period, and even late in that 
period. The composite character of the vocabulary 
had been established by the middle of the fourteenth 
century; by the end of it the language had received 
and assimilated nearly all the words it has ever taken 
from the Old French. During the fifteenth century 
there were no borrowings on a very large scale from 
any quarter. This smallness of addition to the vocab- 
ulary was mainly due to the failure of the intellectual 
movement that had begun so auspiciously at the 
beginning of the Middle English period. Chaucer 
died in 1400; but he left no successors to his genius 
or his authority; and, for more than one hundred 
years after his death, literature was in a state of 
collapse. Consequently the new words that were 
brought in did not in many cases establish them- 
selves permanently in the speech. Nor was it, in- 
deed, until the sixteenth century, that they began to be 
introduced extensively. Then, as in the previous 
century, they were taken, as a general rule, directly 



Changes in the Middle English Period. 145 

from the Latin, and a large number of those bor- 
rowed from it at that time have not survived. As, 
therefore, the lexical additions of the Middle Eng- 
lish period were either not great or not of great 
importance, it is the grammatical changes that went 
on during that time which will principally demand 
attention. At this point it will be necessary to lay 
down certain principles that affect the development 
of the inflectional system in a cultivated tongue. 

In the history of inflections two counteracting in- 
fluences, which are always operating upon language, 
become plainly visible. One of these is the tendency 
to bring about uniformity, the other the tendency to 
arrest all change; no matter in either case whether 
the result is to be desired or to be deplored. It is 
more especially the colloquial speech with the lighter 
literature that depicts it, that strives unconsciously to 
reduce all inflections to absolute regularity. To this 
tendency the great body of the literature already 
created is in active and constant opposition. It 
resists any alteration in established forms which have 
received the sanction of good usage. A few illustra- 
tions, taken from the inflectional system of the noun 
and of the verb, will make these statements perfectly 
clear. 

In Modern English the large majority of verbs form 
the preterite by the addition of -d or -ed. Conse- 
quently there is a disposition on the part of children 
just learning the language — and, to some extent, of 
the uneducated — to bring all verbs without distinc- 



146 English Language. 

tion under the operation of this same general law, to 
add -d or -ed to verbs that regularly form their pret- 
erite in a different manner. Hence we hear such ex- 
pressions as / seed^ I drawed^ I drinked, I knowed. 
But the influence of the literary language speedily 
overcomes this tendency in all persons properly edu- 
cated, and the correct preterite is soon used invari- 
ably and unconsciously. But at a time when no 
literature existed influential enough to establish a 
standard speech, to v/hich all felt bound to conform, 
the tendency to bring about uniformity on this very 
point was exceedingly powerful. Hence a vast num- 
ber of verbs that once formed their preterite by 
vowel-change replaced it by -d or -ed. For in- 
stance, holp, the preterite of help^ became helped. 
The establishment of a standard literature, however, 
prevented a large number from abandoning their 
original inflection and adopting the one which the 
large majority of verbs followed. Furthermore, there 
were a certain number of verbs in which neither 
tendency triumphed absolutely. For instance, thrive 
can take with perfect propriety as its preterite either 
throve or thrived. 

Let us, furthermore, take the case of the noun. 
The regular formation of the plural is in Modern 
English by the adding of the ending -s. Hence 
arises, naturally, a disposition to make all nouns 
conform to this rule. This we see exemplified in 
the tendency of young children to say nians^ foots, 
sheeps, instead of the proper plurals. But in the case 



Chaiiges in the Middle English Period. 147 

of nouns taken from foreign tongues, all users of 
language exhibit this same disposition. Such nouns, 
when first brought in, almost invariably retain the in- 
flection they have in the tongue from which they have 
been borrowed. But if the word come into fairly 
common use, they are apt to give up the foreign 
plural and assume in its place the regular English 
plural in -s. Thus the Greek dogma had, for a while 
after its original introduction, the Greek plural dog- 
mata ; similarly, the Latin omen had at the outset the 
Latin plural omina. But as these words began to be 
generally employed, the tendency to produce uni- 
formity prevailed. Dogmata was discarded for dog- 
mas^ omina for omens. 

But such a result is far from happening invariably. 
For various reasons foreign nouns sometimes establish 
themselves so firmly in the language of literature that 
the original plural maintains itself undisputed. Thus 
the desire for uniformity has never been sufficient to 
induce the users of language to give up genera and 
adopt gemcses as the plural of genus. But in the 
noun also, as in the case of the verb, the operation 
of the two counteracting influences has sometimes 
resulted in giving us double forms. Foiyjitda and 
??ie7norandnm, for illustration, have each two plurals 
in correct use, formtdee and formulas, memoranda 
and memorandu77is. 

It is from the conflict of these two opposing 
agencies that the grammatical forms of the lan- 
guage came out at the end of the Middle English 



148 English Language. 

period what we now find them. The reduction to 
uniformity that was then effected has never since 
been disturbed; the anomalies that were then left in 
our speech have remained with us still. Here the 
most important of the changes that took place are all 
that can be given. As before, the usage of Chaucer 
will be taken as the standard of the latter half of the 
fourteenth century, and the comparison will accord- 
ingly be made between it and the form of the lan- 
guage which had become established at the beginning 
of the Modern English period. 

Changes in the Inflection. — Kouns. — In the writ- 
ings of Chaucer the noun had regularly for the plural 
the ending in -s. Still there remained then a num- 
ber which had failed to conform to this general law, 
and terminated instead in -n. These were of two 
classes. Some were descendants of nouns belonging 
to the Anglo-Saxon declension, which formed its 
plural in -an, later becoming weakened into -en. 
This ending they continued to retain exclusively in 
certain words such as eyen and oxen, or wavered 
between it and the ending in -s, as in been, bees, and 
ton, toos, the modern 'toes.' By the middle of the 
sixteenth century the principle of uniformity had 
triumphed in the case of most. All of this class 
had passed over to the regular formation in -s, with 
the single exception of oxen, Eyen or eyne may also 
be found along with eyes, but then, as occasionally 
now, only in poetry; and the same statement is true 
of shoon for shoes. 



Changes in the Middle English Period. 149 

Other nouns, however, had had the termination 
in -n added by what had originally been a blunder, 
but which blunder had in Chaucer's time become 
correct usage. Most of these denoted the family 
relation, and two of them, doughtren (A. S. dohtru) 
and sist7'en or sustren (A. S. szveostru), assumed be- 
fore the end of the Middle English period the regu- 
lar ending in -s, which they also had at times at its 
beginning. But children (A. S. cihh^ti) and bj^ethren 
(A. S. broSru) and kine (A. S. rj') still preserve an 
-n to which etymologically they are not entitled. 
The first of these has maintained itself as the only 
standard form; but the two others have been for the 
most part supplanted by the regular formations 
brothers and cows. Yet it was not until almost the 
beginning of the seventeenth century that either of 
these two last-named plurals had made a permanent 
place for itself in the literary speech. Neither one 
of them is found in our version of the Bible. 

Again, in Chaucer, a number of nouns are found 
with the plural of the same form as the singular. 
They are usually descendants of the Anglo-Saxon 
neuter noun of the vowel-declension,^ many of which 
had the nominative and accusative plural the same as 
the nominative and accusative singular. Thus hus, 
^ house, ' had also the sense of ' houses,' and the dia- 
" lectic ' housen ' has accordingly as much claim to ety- 
mological correctness as the present regular form. 
Most of these nouns at the beginning of the Middle 

1 See Part II., sec. 25. 



150 English Language, 

English period had conformed to the regular inflec- 
tion, and adopted -s as the ending of the phiral. A 
few held out, as, for instance, horse and thing and 
year. These sometimes added -s to denote the plural, 
and sometimes retained in that number the singular 
form. By the middle of the sixteenth century, how- 
ever, all of them, except in certain phrases, were 
inflected regularly. The same statement is true of a 
few words, the genitive of which in Chaucer and 
others had sometimes no ending at all, or ended in 
-e. Thus brother sone would be ^ brother's son,' and 
of hevefie kyng would be ^ of heaven's king.' All of 
these genitives early adopted the regular termination 
in -s. 

Pronouns. — In the pronoun the only change of 
importance that took place during the Middle English 
period was in- the plural of the pronoun of the third 
person. In Chaucer this had they in the nominative, 
in place of the original hi ^ ; but, in the genitive and 
objective were still retained the original here and he7n. 
But even in his own time their and them, correspond- 
ing to the nominative they, were widely used. In 
the fifteenth century the latter were adopted into the 
speech of all, though even to this day a relic of the 
objective he^n survives in the form of 'em} 

Adjectives. — A.t the beginning of the Middle Eng- 
lish period, the adjective, as we have seen,^ had been' 
nearly stripped of the numerous inflections it had 
possessed in the Anglo-Saxon. During the two cen- 

1 See Part II., sec. 103. 2 ib., sec. 108. 3 See page 96. 



Changes in the Middle Engl is Ji Period. 1 5 i 

turies that followed, it lost the httle it had retained. 
The use of the final -e, to denote the plural and the 
definite declension in the singular, was abandoned 
altogether; and the adjective was left, as we now 
have it, without any inflection whatever. In its com- 
parison the vowel-modification, which in some cases 
it underwent in Chaucer and his contemporaries, dis- 
appeared before the middle of the sixteenth century. 
Long and strong and old, at the beginning of the 
Middle English period, had for comparatives lenger, 
strenger, and elder ; at the end of it, they had the 
regular forms, longer, stronger, and older, now in use. 
Here, however, the tendency towards uniformity did 
not meet with perfect success ; for old has continued 
to keep, along with the regular form, the earlier elder. 
Verbs. — Attention has already been called to the 
fact that, after the Norman Conquest, the disposition 
became widely prevalent to drop the final -n. But, 
though this was always in operation, it had not, even 
in the time of Chaucer, been carried out to a com- 
plete result. In his writings the infinitive of the verb, 
and the plural number of both the present and the 
past tenses of the indicative, end in -e7i or -e ; thus we 
have to hopen or to hope, they hopen or they hope, and 
they hopeden or they hopede. In the case of the past 
tense it is not at all unfrequent, also, to have the final 
-e dropped in pronunciation ; it sometimes happened 
in the case of the other two parts of the verb that 
have been mentioned. This tendency to drop the -n, 
which had been the prevailing one in the fourteenth 



152 English Language. 

century, became almost universally established in the 
fifteenth. Ben Jonson in his English Grammar asserts, 
that, until about the reign of King Henry VIII. (1509- 
1547), present plurals were found in -en. But, though 
they are found at that time, they lingered then, as 
they did at a later period, as survivals of the past, 
rather than as forms in living, current use. Along 
with the -11 gradually disappeared the final -e. It was 
dropped universally during the fifteenth century in 
pronunciation ; in som.e cases it was dropped in the 
spelling, and in other cases retained. 

Failure to produce Complete Uniformity. — From 
this survey, it is clear that a steady movement went on 
during the Middle EngUsh period towards the produc- 
tion of absolute uniformity of inflection. But, while 
this accomplished much, it did not succeed in accom- 
plishing everything. In spite of it, anomalous forms 
continued to exist. Sisfreii and doughteren and ton 
had become sisters and daughters and toes ; but oxen 
and children had failed to pass over into oxes and 
childs. The plural hors and night and year and thing 
had become horses^ nights^ years, and things ; but sheep 
and deer had not become sheeps and deers. Nor did 
plurals whose form was due to vowel -modification, 
such as men, feet, mice, geese, lose any of their num- 
ber after the fourteenth century. From the end of 
that century on, the influence of the opposing agency 
began to make itself more and more felt. The com- 
plete success of any radical movement to bring about 
an ideal regularity was in a large number of instances 



Changes in the Middle English Period. 153 

counteracted by that conservative opposition to all 
change which is a marked characteristic of cultivated 
speech. This has been seen in the inflection of the 
noun ; but it asserted itself most conspicuously in the 
conjugation of the verb. Here a movement toward 
uniformity, which had been in active operation since 
the break-up of the Anglo-Saxon, was finally arrested. 
Not only, indeed, was it arrested, but it may be said 
that a movement in the opposite direction started into 
being, though it has never been productive of impor- 
tant results. 

There are in English, as in every other Teutonic 
tongue, two leading conjugations of the verbs. The 
one is called the old, or strong, conjugation ; the 
other, the new, or weak. The main distinction be- 
tween them is easy of comprehension. The weak 
verb adds now, or once added, a syllable to form 
the past tense. This syllable was in Anglo-Saxon, -de, 
which, under certain circumstances, became -te. Mod- 
ern Enghsh has invariably dropped the final -e of this 
termination, leaving it -d or -/, and generally inserting 
an e before the d. For illustration, the verb fyllan, 
'to fill,' formed a preterite fyl-de ; drypan, ^ to 
drip,' formed the preterite dryp-te. In a very few 
cases, also, the vowel of the root was varied ; thus, 
tellaUy * to tell,' formed the preterite teal-de, ' tol-d ' ; 
slcan, ^to seek,' formed the preterite soh-fe, ^ sough-t.' 
On the other hand, the strong conjugation added 
nothing to form the past tense, but the vowel of the 
root in every case underwent change ; thus, drinc-an, 



154 English Language. 

' to drink/ had in the first person of the preterite 
singular dranc ; glid-an, ^ to gWde^'' had glad for the 
corresponding form of its preterite. 

For the three centuries immediately following the 
Norman Conquest the distinction between these two 
conjugations was largely broken down ; but the changes 
that resulted inured almost entirely to the benefit of one 
of them. Numbers of verbs originally having the strong 
Inflection gave it up, and took the weak in its place. 
Many, indeed, of the x\nglo- Saxon strong verbs had 
been wholly lost to the language by the beginning of 
the Middle English period. Furthermore, so many of 
those that were retained had become weak, and the 
general movement in that direction w^as so decided, 
that it seemed merely a question of time when the 
strong inflection would disappear entirely. But this 
movement received a check with the creation of a 
great native literature. In fact, the strong conjuga- 
tion has lost nothing during the past three hundred 
years, and has lost but little during the past five 
hundred. 

This is a statement directly contrary to the one 
frequently made. It is a common assertion that the 
strong verbs are disappearing from our tongue. The 
assertion, however, has no foundation in fact. On 
the contrary, not a single strong verb that was in 
regular use at the end of the Middle English period, 
more than three hundred years ago, has since been 
lost. A few strong forms, then found, are scarcely 
used now, and when used are almost invariably hmited 



Cliangcs in the Middle English Period. 155 

to the language of poetry, as, for instance, holp and 
clomb. But even then these were archaic, and occur 
far less frequently than the weak forms helped and 
elimbed. In fact, Ben Jonson, in his Grammar, ex- 
pressly asserts of holp that it " is seldom used save 
with the poets." In some instances, also, weak pret- 
erite forms, such, for example, as shined, sprang up 
and perpetuated themselves alongside of the strong 
forms. But there has been a steady tendency, on the 
whole, to discard the use of these, and some, once in 
common use, are now rarely heard ; for there has 
never been a period when this particular tendency 
has been more pronounced than at present. 

In fact, the reverse of the common impression is 
the truth. A preference for the strong conjugation 
has manifested itself in our tongue since the establish- 
ment of literature. In accordance with this feeling, 
weak verbs have in a few instances assumed the strong 
inflection. Dig^ for illustration, now forms the pret- 
erite dug; but in early Modern English digged is the 
form found. Even a certain number of anomalous 
verbs of the weak conjugation have successfully re- 
sisted the tendency, once prevalent, to inflect them 
regularly. Reach, to be sure, has given up its older 
preterite, raiight ; but this it had generally done early 
in the Modern English period. On the other hand, 
weak verbs like teach, catch, and tell, still prefer their 
preterites taught, caught, and told, to the forms teached, 
catched, and /^//<?^, which have at times been in use. 

These were the main changes that took place dur- 



156 English Language. 

ing the Middle English period, as the result of the 
two influences that are always at work upon cultivated 
speech. One addition to the inflectional system of 
the verb, and one loss, are also to be noted as having 
characterized the history of the language during these 
two centuries. 

The addition was in the shape of a new method to 
express the relation of present and past time. The 
phrases compounded of parts of the verb be and the 
present participle, such, for instance, as / am going, 
and / was going, had been in common use from the 
earhest period of the language. In addition to these a 
new verb-phrase, to denote the present and past tenses, 
was established during this period. It was formed by 
compounding do and did with the infinitive, seen, for 
illustration, in / do go, and / did go. Forms of this 
kind made their appearance, indeed, in the language 
in the thirteenth century ; but they v/ere but little 
used either then or for a long time after. It was not 
until the beginning of the fifteenth century that they 
became common, and not until the end of it that they 
became general. 

The loss was the plural form of the imperative 
mood. Originally this mood had distinct forms for 
the second person of the singular and of the plural. 
For illustration, in the Anglo-Saxon verb helpan, ' to 
help,' the form used in the imperative would always be 
help, whenever a single person was addressed ; when- 
ever more than one, the form would be help ad , which 
in later Enghsh would become and did become 



Changes in the Middle English Period. 157 

heiptth. In the fourteenth century the two forms had 
largely come to be confounded ; and by the end of 
the fifteenth the plural ending -{e)th had disappeared 
altogether. 

The Middle English period saw, also, the final 
abandonment of the grammatical gender, and the 
substitution, in its place, of one corresponding to the 
natural distinctions of sex. This was the result of 
processes that had been steadily at work since the 
Norman Conquest. In Anglo-Saxon, the gender of the 
noun depended not upon its meaning, but upon its 
termination, or method of inflection. Objects with 
fife were, in consequence, sometimes neuter; while 
far more frequently objects without life were mascu- 
line or feminine. The early language presents us in this 
respect the same characteristics as the other tongues 
of the Indo-European family, such as Latin, Greek, 
or the modern German. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon, wlf, 
Svoman,' 'wife,' was neuter. Again, 7nud , 'mouth,' 
and toS, ' tooth,' were masculine ; timge, ' tongue,' and 
nostc, 'nose,' were feminine; eage, 'eye,' and ea^^e, 
' ear,' were neuter. It is evident that such a system 
of denoting gender, whatever it may have been at the 
beginning, tended to become a purely conventional 
one, so far as distinctions of sex were concerned ; and 
this it actually did become. 

It was, accordingly, one great compensation for the 
disappearance of inflection, that with it this system 
necessarily disappeared. A gender which depended 
upon differences of termination and declension could 



158 English Language. 

not continue to flourish after those differences had 
been swept away. When to this loss was added the 
still more important loss of the inflection qf the adjec- 
tive and the adjective pronouns, every method of 
denoting it was gone. The consequence was, that it 
was the meaning that decided the gender to which 
the noun should be ascribed ; and this necessarily 
brought the gender into harmony with the real dis- 
tinctions of sex. The breaking-down of the gram- 
matical system began immediately after the Conquest. 
The substitution of the natural system may be said 
to have been mainly effected before the beginning 
of the Middle EngUsh period ; by the end of it, the 
change had become perfectly established. Since that 
time, it is only in the language of poetry, or of passion, 
affectionate or inimical in its character, that objects 
without life are personified, or objects with life are 
spoken of as things : nor would even this be possible, 
had not a few of the pronouns still retained a separate 
form and inflections for distinctions of sex. 

All these agencies were working actively during the 
Middle English period to bring the language into the 
condition in which we find it at the beginning of 
the reign of Elizabeth. Much remained unsettled and 
uncertain during the fifteenth century. A most im- 
portant agency in establishing uniformity was the 
wide expansion given to the influence of the Hterary 
language by the invention of printing. This art, 
WilUam Caxton (i422?-i49i) introduced into Eng- 
land in 1476. He translated many books into his 



Changes in the Middle English Period. 159 

native tongue, and the prologue to one of them — the 
*' Eneydos/' pubHshed m 1490 — gives a faithful pic- 
ture of the still unsettled state of the speech, and of 
the difficulties that beset him who sought to write in 
it. As it exhibits also the character of the language 
towards the close of the fifteenth century, an extract 
from it will be given here. Caxton, after speaking of 
the French romance, which was his original, goes on 
to add the following account of the condition of the 
language in his time : — 

And whan I had aduysed me in this sayd boke, I delyvered ^ 
and concluded to translate it in to Englysshe, and forthwyth toke 
a penne and ynke and wrote a leef or tweyne, whyche I oversawe 
agayn to corecte it. And whan I sawe the fayr and straunge 
termes therin, I doubted^ that it sholde not please some gentyl- 
men whiche late blamed me, sayeng Y in my translacyons I 
had ouer curyous termes whiche coude not be vnderstande of 
comyn peple, and desired me to vse olde and homely termes in 
my translacyons; and fayn wolde I satysfye euery man, and so to 
doo toke an olde booke and redde therin, and certaynly the 
Englysshe was so rude and brood that I coude not wele vnder- 
stande it. And also my lorde Abbot of Westmynster ded do 
shewe ^ to me late certayn euydences wryton in olde Englysshe 
for to reduce it in to our Englysshe now vsid. And certaynly 
it was wreton in suche wyse that it was more lyke to Dutche 
than Englysshe. I coude not reduce ne brynge it to be vnder- 
stonden. And certaynly our langage now vsed varyeth ferre 
from that whiche was vsed and spoken whan I was borne. For 
we Englysshe men ben borne vnder the domynacion of the 
mone, whiche is neuer stedfaste but ever wauerynge, wexynge 
one season and waneth and dycreaseth "another season. And 

1 Deliberated. 2 Feared. 3 Caused to be shown. 



i6o Engliih Language. 

that comyn Englysshe, that is spoken in one shyre, varyeth from 
another. In so moche that in my dayes happened that certayn 
marchauntes were in a ship in Tamyse, for to haue sayled ouer 
the see into Zelande, and for lacke of wynde thei taryed atte 
Forlond, and wente to land for to refreshe them. And one of 
theym, named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in to an hows and axed 
for mete, and specyally he axyd after eggys. And the goode 
w^f answerde that she coude speke no Frenshe. And the mar- 
ch aunt was angry, for he also coude speke no Frenshe, but 
wolde haue hadde egges, and she vnderstode hym not. And 
thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren. Then 
the good wyf sayd that she vnderstod hym wel. Loo ! what 
sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, egges or eyren? Cer- 
taynly it is harde to playse euery man by cause of dyuersite and 
chaunge of langage. For in these dayes euery man that is in ony 
reputacyon in his countre wyll vtter his comynycacyon and 
maters in suche maners and termes that fewe men shall vnder- 
stonde theym. And som honest and grete clerkes haue ben 
wyth me and desired me to wryte the moste curyous termes 
that I coude fynde. And thus bytwene playn, rude and curyous 
I stande abasshed. But in my judgemente the comyn termes, 
that be dayli vsed, ben lyghter to be vnderstonde than the olde 
and auncyent Englysshe. And for as moche as this present 
booke is not for a rude vplondyssh man to laboure therein, ne 
rede it, but onely for a clerke and a noble gentylman that feleth 
and vnderstondeth in faytes of armes, in loue and in noble 
chyvalrye; therefor in a meane bytwene bothe I have reduced 
and translated this sayd booke in to our Englysshe, not ouer 
rude ne curyous, but in suche termes as shall be vnderstanden 
by goddys grace accordynge to my copye. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

MODERN ENGLISH. 
1550, . 

Up to this time in the nomenclature of the periods 
of the EngHsh tongue, and in the dates assigned to 
them, there has been among scholars a wide diversity 
of usage. In regard to the latest period, however, 
there is a pretty substantial agreement. There are 
some who assign its beginning to the year 1500 ; there 
are but very few who place it any earlier. Many 
refer it, as is done here, to the middle of the sixteenth 
century. There are those by whom it is specifically 
reckoned from the accession of Queen Ehzabeth, 
which took place in 1558. 

No dates can ever be given in the history of the 
development of any tongue, against which some ob- 
jections cannot be brought. For convenience of ref- 
erence, a further subdivision of Modern English is 
desirable. In this work it will be separated into the 
three following periods. The first extends from 1550 
to the year of the restoration of the Stuarts in the fol- 
lowing century, that is, to 1660 ; the second, from 1660 
to a point in the latter part of the eighteenth century, 
161 



1 62 English Language, 

and in this the year 1783, the date of the ending of 
the American Revolution, affords a convenient termi- 
nus ; the third period extends from 1783 to the 
present time. Though the division is made primarily 
for convenience of reference, it will be found, that, on 
the whole, it is a satisfactory division for the historical 
treatment of both the language and the literature. 

Two facts have been pointed out in the previous 
chapter, to which it is now necessary to call special 
attention. One is, that, in highly cultivated tongues, 
changes in grammar always take place slowly, and, as 
a general rule, only after a long struggle. The other 
is, that, in such a tongue, changes in vocabulary, par- 
ticularly in the nature of additions to it, meet with 
no opposition, or with comparatively little. The reasons 
for this condition of things reveal themselves after short 
consideration. In early speech men think mainly of 
what they are going to say, not of the way in which 
they are to say it ; and the hearer or reader likewise 
cares so much more for the matter, that he does not 
consciously give much heed to the manner. In later 
times all this is reversed. The vehicle of the thought 
has then become a subject of consideration indepen- 
dent of the thought ; that is, language has begun to be 
studied for itself, as well as for what it conveys. When 
any tongue has reached this point of development, 
the opposition to change in established forms of ex- 
pression is sure to become exceedingly powerful. 
Against such changes are arrayed all the authority of 
past usage, and all the prejudice in favor of what 



Changes in Modern English. 163 

actually is existing, and has been found to do^ though 
perhaps clumsily, the work demanded of it. In fact, 
it may be said that these changes never succeed in 
making themselves adopted, until the necessity for 
them is imperious enough to override the protests of 
professional purists, and the feeling of dislike to inno- 
vation which becomes almost a second nature in the 
cultivated users of speech. 

True as these statements are of any tongue, they 
are especially true of Modern English. The lexical 
changes that have gone on in it have been numerous. 
Very few old words, indeed, once in common use, 
have been utterly lost. Nor has there been very 
much alteration, comparatively speaking, in the mean- 
ings of the old words, though this has been far more 
frequent than the actual disappearance of these words 
themselves. It is the accessions to the vocabulary 
which in this respect is the most marked characteristic 
of the modern speech. Additions have been made to 
it and are continuing to be made to it on the most 
extensive scale. On the other hand, the grammatical 
changes have been exceedingly few. During the past 
four hundred years not a single one has taken place in 
the inflection of the noun, unless the assumption by 
two or three of the regular plural in -s^ be so 
considered. In the inflection of the adjective there 
could be none, because, at the beginning of the Mod- 
ern English period, it had already been reduced to 
the root form. It is only in the inflection of the pro- 

1- See page 149. 



164 English Language, 

noun and the verb that certain changes can be found. 
Of these an account of the most important will be 
given. 

Changes in the Inflection. — The Pronoun. — The 
latter half of the sixteenth century witnessed the rise, 
or at least the general prevalence, of a confusion in 
the use of the nominative and objective cases of the 
personal pronouns and of the interrogative and rela- 
tive who, /and me, we and us, thou and thee, ye 
and you, he and him, she and hei^, who and luhom, 
are not unfrequently used without distinction.^ This 
practice must have characterized the colloquial 
speech, because it is especially noticeable in the 
literature that represents it, the writings of the Eliza- 
bethan dramatists; though the extent of its preva- 
lence is largely disguised in modern reprints of their 
works by the silent changes of the original made by 
editors. The confusion in the use of the nominative 
and the objective is more pronounced in the case of 
some of these pronouns than of others. In the plural 
of that of the second person it has established itself 
permanently in the speech. Ye, in the language of 
Chaucer, invariably denotes the nominative; you, 
the objective; and this usage will still be found ob- 
served in the authorized version of the Bible. But 
in the fifteenth century the distinction, owing to 
special reasons, began to break down, and before 
the end of the sixteenth, the two forms were used in- 
terchangeably for each other. ^ At the present time 

1 See Part II., note to sec. 117. 2 ib. sec. 115. 



The Pronoim in Modern English, 165 

the original nominative ye, though occasionally found, 
is practically supplanted by the form you, which 
etymologically belongs only to the dative and to the 
accusative; and in turn, ye, when now used at all, is 
more often in the objective case than in the nomina- 
tive. 

But numerous phrases such as between you and /, 
// is him, it is her, sprang up at that period and 
have lasted down in colloquial speech to our own 
day. To a large extent most of them have also been 
used in literature, and there have been times when 
they have been almost as common as the strictly 
more correct forms. Etymologically // is me is as 
proper as it is you ; but the former expression gener- 
ally incurs the censure of modern grammarians. 
Colloquial speech has likewise retained to a large 
extent the use of who for whom, in questions such as 
Who did you go to see ? or Who are you talking about ? 
and others of the same general character. These 
abound in the literature which represents the lan- 
guage of conversation through all the periods of 
Modern English. They are still constantly heard, 
and in some instances are so much more common 
than the strictly correct expressions, that the use of 
the latter seems at times to partake almost of the 
nature of pedantry. 

Of all the parts of speech the pronoun is the most 
adverse to the introduction of any new forms; yet to 
its limited number the close of the sixteenth century 
saw the addition of its. The genitive of // (originally 



1 66 English Language, 

hit) is etymologically his ;'^ but this is also the geni- 
tive of he. It was inevitable that confusion should 
arise in the use of this one form applied equally to 
an object with life and to one without life, as soon 
as the system of grammatical gender had passed away. 
Confusion did arise; and expedients of all kinds 
were resorted to for the sake of securing clearness. 
Sometimes, as is the case in the English Bible, of it 
and thereof \\tYQ used; as, for instance: — 

Two cubits and a half was the length of it, — Exodus xxxvii. I. 
Two cubits and a half was the length thereof. — lb. 6. 

Sometimes the was employed, as in the following 
example : — 

For we see that it is the manner of men to scandalize and 
deprave that which retaineth the state and virtue, by taking ad- 
vantage of that which is corrupt and degenerate. — Bacon, Ad- 
vancement of Learning. 

More frequently still // was used itself as a genitive, 
as follows : — 

The hedge-sparrow fed the cuckoo so long, 
That it had it head bit off by it young. 

Shakspeare, King Lear^ i. 4. 

Finally, both the and it were very commonly joined 
with OW72, making such phrases as the own and it own. 
The following is an example : — 

That which groweth of it oivn accord of thy harvest, thou 
shalt not reap. — Leviticus xxv. 5 (original edition). 

1 See Part II., sec. 103. 



The Pronotin in Modern English. 167 

In this verse the Bishop's Bible (1572) had the 
own. 

The most usual method to avoid ambiguity was, 
however, to change the construction of the sentence. 
All these difficulties led to the formation of its. The 
first record of its appearance in print that has yet 
been found belongs to the year 1598, where it occurs 
in one of the definitions of an Italian and English 
dictionary, entitled "A Worlde of Wordes," by John 
Florio. Its infrequency is made conspicuous by the 
fact that it appears but ten times in Shakspeare's 
works. With Ben Jonson (1573-1637) it is much 
more common, and it certainly occurs in the writings 
of Decker, Webster, Beaumont and Fletcher, and 
probably in those of all the dramatists who immedi- 
ately followed Shakspeare. By the middle of the 
seventeenth century it had become thoroughly estab- 
lished. Still the fact that Milton (161 2-1674) uses 
it but three times in his poetry, and rarely in his 
prose, shows that in the minds of some there v/as a 
prejudice still lingering against it. By the end of 
that century, however, its comparatively recent origin 
seems to have been entirely forgotten. Dryden, 
writing after the Restoration, even censures Ben 
Jonson for his bad grammar in using his where its^ 
he says, would have been the appropriate word. 

Verb. — In the verb the inflectional changes have 
been of more importance. One of them is purely 
special. This is the complete transition of the 
form be of the substantive verb from the indica- 



1 68 English Language. 

tive to the subjunctive mood. In Elizabethan Eng- 
lish be is found frequently alongside of are^ at least 
in the third person of the plural. The practice may 
be illustrated by the following : — 

Where be thy brothers? 
Where be thy two sons? Wherein dost thou joy? 
Who sues and kneels and says, God save the queen? 
Where be the bending peers that flattered thee? 
Where be the thronging troops that followed thee?^ 

This practice continues to be maintained in those 
two great conservators of archaic expression, — the 
language of poetry and of low life. In the latter it 
still occurs constantly, in the former occasionally. 
But be early began, in literary prose, to be confined 
to the subjunctive mood; and this has now become 
the established practice in the ordinary cultivated 
speech. 

A second change has been the gradual substitution 
of -s for -th as the termination of the third person 
singular of the present indicative. In the Midland 
dialect of the Eastern counties, from which literary 
English directly sprang, this part of the verb ended 
invariably in -th. Such was the practice of Chaucer 
and of those of his contemporaries, who wrote in that 
dialect or in the Southern. If any of them occasionally 
used the form in -s, it was ordinarily due to the de- 
sire of accommodating the rhyme. On the other hand, 
this third person regularly ended in -s in the North- 

1 Shakspeare's Richard III., act iv. scene 4. 



The Verb in Modern English. 169 

ern dialect. From this dialect it began to make its 
way into literary English in the former half of the 
sixteenth century. The practice of employing it be- 
came more and more prevalent, and by the end of 
that century it is found, at least in some writers, full 
as frequently as the ending in -th. The two forms 
are in fact used interchangeably, as in the following 
line from Shakspeare : — 

" It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." 

Accordingly, during most of the first period of 
Modern English the terminations -s and -th flour- 
ished side by side, neither seeming to have any 
preference in popular estimation; but, toward the 
latter part of it, the former ending became the one 
generally used, and with the progress of time gradu- 
ally displaced the other. That the termination -/// 
did not die out entirely is probably due to the influ- 
ence of the English Bible. Though the authorized 
version of that work appeared as late as 161 1, the 
language used in it belonged, as is well known, to 
the early portion of the preceding century. In it the 
ending is throughout in -th ; it never, for instance, 
says he makes , but invariably he maketh. To this is 
due the preservation of the form, and the additional 
circumstance that it is no\y almost entirely confined 
to the language of religion. 

There is nothing more supremely characteristic of 
our speech, especially in its later periods, than the 
extent to which it has developed the use of passive 



I/O English Language, 

formations. In this respect it has gone far beyond 
any other cultivated modern tongue. The discussion 
of this belongs mostly to syntax, and needs here 
nothing beyond simple reference. But the tendency 
in this direction which the language has long mani- 
fested, has had, as one result, the addition during 
the past hundred years, of entirely new verb-phrases, 
made up of the present and past tenses of the substan- 
tive verb, and of past participles compounded with 
being. The history of this idiom presents a striking 
instance of the difficulty in which the decay of old 
forms leaves a language, and the ingenuity it displays 
in striking out new paths to expression. 

Anglo-Saxon had no special form for the passive. 
To represent, for instance, the present of that voice, 
it combined the past participle of any particular 
verb with the present tense of either the verbs wesan 
and blon, ^to be,' or the verb weordan, ^to become.' 
This last was preserved in Early English in the form 
worthe{n), and like the corresponding German word 
werden, was not unfrequently used to form the 
passive; though in our tongue it conveyed usually and 
perhaps invariably a future signification. The fol- 
lowing lines will exemplify it: — 

For ho so doth wel here * at the daye of dome 
Worth faire vnderfonge * by-for God that tyme.^ 

But worthe, in process of time, disappeared from the 

1 For who so doth well here, at the day of doom 
Shall be fairly received before God that time. 

Piers Plowman, Text C, Passus X., line 321. 



Neiv Passive Formation. 171 

language, and the tenses of the verb he became the 
only ones that were combined with the past partici- 
ple to express the passive relation. 

This it could easily do for the present tense, when 
the verb whose participle was used denoted a feeling 
which was in its nature continuous. ^ The man is 
loved, is feared, is admired, ' were expressions which 
presented no difficulty or ambiguity. They were 
genuine present tenses of the passive voice. But, 
when the verb whose participle was used denoted a 
simple act, the combination of the passive participle 
with the present tense of the verb be had the effect of 
giving to the full verbal phrase, not the sense of some- 
thing which was then actually taking place, but of 
something which had already taken place. It was a 
completed, not an existing action, which was signi- 
fied by it. ' The man is shot, is wounded, is killed, ' 
could not well be employed of anything else than a 
finished result, not of an action going on to a possi- 
ble result. It was not a present tense that was 
denoted, but a past. 

The most common way taken to avoid the difficulty 
was to change the form of expression. Thus, in the 
case of the examples just given, resort could be had 
to inversion, and such sentences as 'they are shoot- 
ing, are wounding, are killing the man,' could be 
employed. But these v/ere often cumbrous and unsat- 
isfactory. Accordingly, various circumlocutions came 
into use to express the idea conveyed by the passive. 
One of these was to join the present of the verb be, 



172 English Language. 

to the verbal substantive in -ing. governed by the 
preposition on or in. The preposition, in time, took 
the form of a^ or, rather, was corrupted into it by 
slovenly pronunciation, and was then usually joined 
directly to the substantive. In this way arose ex- 
pressions like Hhe house is a-building,' ^the brass is 
a-forging, ' ^the dinner is a-preparing.' From the 
verbal substantive finally fell away the preposition. 
This left the verbal phrase designed to denote the 
passive relation precisely the same as the verbal 
phrase compounded of the substantive verb be and 
the present participle, which is one of the methods of 
forming the present tense of the active voice. The 
transition which the phrase underwent can be exhib- 
ited by using the first of the illustrations given. The 
following are the three forms : — 

The house is in building. 
The house is a-building. 
The house is building. 

It is obvious that this method of denoting the pas- 
sive could be carried out on only a limited scale. It 
was but rarely the case that a subject with life could 
be given to a passive verbal phrase of the kind. In 
^the house is building,' and ^the man is building,' it 
is obvious at a glance that the idea conveyed by 
is building is essentially distinct. In the one case is 
building is in the active voice; in the other it is in 
the passive. Nor would the difficulty have been 
removed, had the preposition been retained. *The 



New Passive Formation. 173 

man is a-eating' could not by any possibility be 
looked upon as a passive formation, and made to 
mean that the subject of the verb was undergoing the 
process of being eaten. 

Some other method of expression was felt to be 
necessary. Accordingly, in the eighteenth century, a 
new verb-phrase, made up of the substantive verb 
and the past participle compounded with being, 
came into use. We see it exemplified in the com- 
mon example ^the house is being built,' in which the 
new inflection is made up of is, and the compound 
past participle being btcilt. Like the forms com- 
pounded with do, these phrases were confined to the 
present and preterite tenses. Their employment 
speedily became common. Though they met with 
vigorous opposition, they were found so clear in 
meaning, and so convenient in practice, that opposi- 
tion was of no avail. They have been adopted by 
every living writer of repute, and may now be con- 
sidered thoroughly established. Double methods of 
expression, like ^the house is building,' and ^the 
house is being built,' will in some cases doubtless 
continue to exist side by side for a long time to 
come ; but no new ones of the former kind will make 
their way into general use, while there is no percep- 
tible limit to the spread of those of the latter. 

These constitute the important inflectional changes 
that have taken place in Modern English. Certain 
inflections, indeed, have died out entirely during 
this period, such as the use of his as the genitive of 



174 English Language. 

if, and of the plurals of the present tense ending in 
-en, in -th, or in -s ; but these at the very beginning 
of the period were already on the point of extinction. 
There are other grammatical changes, mostly syntacti- 
cal in their nature, into which the limits of this work 
do not suffer us to enter. The character of them 
may be gathered from one or tvvo illustrations. The 
name of the subjunctive mood still continues to exist 
in our tongue; but its employment as conveying any 
shade of meaning distinct from that of the indica- 
tion has largely passed away. This has arisen mainly 
from the fact that the forms of the one mood are in 
great measure the same as those of the other. As a 
result, the distinction that once prevailed in the use of 
the two gradually disappeared, and when the subjunc- 
tive is now employed, the indicative can be generally 
substituted for it without affecting the meaning. So 
also in Early English the double negative strengthened 
the negation. Thus Chaucer, to emphasize the cour- 
tesy of the Knight, puts four negatives into the two 
following lines : — 

He never e yet no vileynye ^ ne sayde 
In al his lyf unto no maner wight.^ 

In the first period of Modern English this use of 
the double negative to strengthen the negation was 
abandoned under the influence of the Latin. In 
fact it can almost be said that the use of the double- 
negative itself has been given up, for it is now rarely 

1 Discourteous language. 2 Nq sort of person. 



Vocabulary of Modern English. 175 

employed even to indicate an affirmative. Still 
though frowned upon by the cultivated speech, the 
original idiom exhibits all its early vitality in the 
language of low life. Questions like these, con- 
nected with the history of usage, would require a 
special work for their proper discussion. 

Changes in the Vocabulary. — It is in the vocabu- 
lary that the greatest changes have taken place, and 
are still taking place, in Modern English; though 
they have never been of such a kind and extent as 
to affect radically the character and continuity of the 
speech. A certain number of words, such, for illustra- 
tion as <?<^r, Ho plough,' leasing, ^a lie,' have dropped 
out of use; but in most instances these terms had 
already begun at the beginning of the period to assume 
a somewhat archaic character. In general, it may be 
said that the losses in words have been comparatively 
slight, while the gains have been numerous. At the 
same time, these gains are far from having been 
spread equally over the history of the modern tongue. 
The period from 1550 to 1660 is especially remark- 
able for the vast number of new terms that came into 
the language, though the movement in that direction 
had begun some time before the middle of the six- 
teenth century. Much the largest proportion of 
these new words came from the Latin, but to some 
extent they were borrowed from the Greek, and from 
the modern tongues, the French, the Spanish, and 
the Italian. 

The disposition to introduce these foreign words 



1/6 English Langicage. 

had manifested itself, as we have said, in the early 
part of the sixteenth century; but it did not get under 
full headway until the latter half. It was a natural re- 
sult of the causes then in operation. It was a time 
of great activity and intense excitement. The intel- 
lectual impulse which had been set in motion by the 
revival of letters was still in its first vigor. It had 
rent the Christian Church into two hostile camps, 
using against each other, in defence of their dogmas, 
all the resources of the common learning of the past 
and the new learning that was coming in. A world 
hitherto unknown had been laid open to view. Fresh 
explorations were constantly bringing to light fresh facts. 
The rapid increase of knowledge and of the develop- 
ment of thought needed new words for their expres- 
sion; and new words were accordingly introduced 
without stint or hesitation. The readiest resource at 
that time of the English-speaking race was the Latin ; 
and there was scarcely a single author of that period 
who did not feel himself at perfect liberty to coin 
from it any terms which seemed to him to express 
more exactly the ideas he sought to convey. The 
consequence was that vast multitudes of words came 
then into our tongue, numbers of which have not as yet 
been collected into our dictionaries, and perhaps, in 
some cases, have never had any existence outside of 
the written speech. Certainly many of them never 
came into general use, and it is not unlikely that no 
small proportion of them were confined to the- indi- 
vidual authors who invented them. In conformity 



Vocabulary of Modem EnglisJi. 177 

with the terminology previously used, this influx is 
often called the ^' Latin of the Fourth Period." 

But, at the time of the restoration of the Stuarts, the 
intellectual impulse above mentioned had practically 
spent its force. The period from 1660 to 1783 was a 
critical rather than a creative age ; and it added but a 
small amount to the English vocabulary. This state 
of things, however, was again broken up towards the 
close of the eighteenth century. A great political and 
humanitarian revolution was. in progress throughout 
Europe. It was attended, not merely with a social 
upheaval, but with a general intellectual movement, 
which presents many striking resemblances to that of 
the sixteenth century. One direct result was the 
introduction of a vast number of new words, which 
the rapid advance in every department of human 
investigation has rendered necessary. Some of these, 
to be sure, are nothing but revivals of terms which had 
previously been brought in during the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries, but had fallen into disuse ; but 
much the larger proportion of them are entirely new 
coinages. Especially is this true in the manifold 
departments of modern science, in which every ad- 
vance gives birth to a number of hitherto unknown 
words. These, in most instances, are taken from the 
Greek. To a large extent, they are purely technical 
in their character ; but, with the progress of the arts, 
a certain number are sure to pass into general circula- 
tion. 

There is still another characteristic which has 



178 English Language, 

marked the later development of the EngHsh vocabu- 
lary. During the past hundred years, our tongue has 
shown a decided tendency to go back to its older 
forms, and to revive a large number of words that 
have been kept alive only in the provincial dialects. 
This is a tendency which the constantly increasing 
attention paid to the study of English in its earlier 
stages has naturally accelerated. The result is that 
many terms which were once known to but few are 
now famihar to all. The language of the sixteenth 
and even of the fourteenth century is much nearer to 
us than it was to the men of the eighteenth century. 
Its words and phrases require far fewer explanations. 
This is a condition of things which will be apt to char- 
acterize more and more the future. Under any cir- 
cumstances, the continued and indeed ever-increasing 
popularity of the great writers of Modern English is 
sufficient to prevent the terms they use from becom- 
ing obsolete, or the language itself to wander far away 
from the forms which they have made familiar. 

The fact of English possessing, to a large extent, a 
double vocabulary — one composed of Teutonic, the 
other of Romance words — has given a marked char- 
acter to the literature of various epochs. At any 
time, to be sure, a difference of terms employed will 
always be due to a difference of subject. It has 
already been pointed out, that the language of reason- 
ing and philosophy, of intellectual processes of any 
kind, will necessarily make extensive use of the Latin 
element ; while, on the contrary, the language of feel- 



Vocabulary of 3Iodern English. 1 79 

ing, in whatever shape manifested, will be mainly 
taken from the Teutonic element. But, even in treat- 
ing of subjects of a similar character, different writers 
living at the same time will vary widely in their choice 
of words. Moreover, it may be said that the literary 
speech has shown a constant tendency to oscillate 
between the two vocabularies. During the first pe- 
riod, from 1550 to 1660, the Latin influence was 
plainly predominant. It affected, not alone the words, 
but also the construction. The involved and stately 
sentences of Bacon, Hooker, and Milton, belong to a 
species of writing which is no longer cultivated ; in- 
deed, it is only in the dramatists of the Elizabethan 
age, that anything closely resembhng modern prose 
can then be found. 

During the second period — that between 1660 and 
1783 — the two elements of the vocabulary were, in 
the main, harmoniously blended, though during the 
latter part of it, under the influence of Johnson, a 
temporary reaction occasionally manifested itself in 
favor of the Latin. ^ But even this speedily passed 
away. On the other hand, during the last period of 
Modern Enghsh, and especially at the present time, a 
reaction in favor of the Teutonic element has set in. 
In spite of the immense accessions to the vocabu- 
lary from the classical tongues, due to the progress of 
science, it is probably true that the proportion of 
words of native origin used by popular writers, as con- 
trasted with words of foreign origin, is greater now 
than at any time during the past three hundred years. 



i8o English Language, 

But the history of the language shows that there is 
nothing permanent about any of these movements, 
whether in favor of the Teutonic or of the Romance 
element of our tongue. Both are essential to the 
speech in its present form, and a marked preference 
for the one, to the exclusion of the other, can, at 
best, be never anything more than a temporary 
fashion. 

Settlement of the Orthography. — During the 
iModern English period the orthography has become 
fixed. The form of the word remains the same, 
though it may be pronounced in half a dozen different 
ways. Originally this was not the case. In the earher 
periods of the language, the orthography may fairly be 
described as phonetic, as far, at least, as it could be 
made such v/ith the imperfect means furnished by the 
Latin alphabet for the representation of English sounds. 
It continued to retain this character even after it had 
been affected by the orthography of the Old French. 
Accordingly, each one tried to spell as he pronounced ; 
and, as pronunciation varied in different parts of the 
country, the spelling necessarily varied with it. 

Many causes have contributed to bringing about the 
present unphonetic character of the English tongue. A 
most important factor in giving it fixedness of form 
was the influence exerted by the art of printing, in 
the practice of which unifoimity of spelling is a 
matter of much consequence. Still this uniformity 
vvas a result very gradually reached. In the progress 
towards the modern orthography the seventeenth 



Orthography of Modern English. i8i 

century shows a clear advance over the sixteenth. 
Even in the early part of it the majority of words are 
spelled as they are now. In many variations exist 
from that at present universally found, as well as 
between that employed at the time itself in different 
printing-houses or by different writers. As illustra- 
tions of the former, the final -e frequently appeared in 
many words from which it is now discarded, as, for 
example, doe^ finde, beene, unknowne, heate, kinde, 
soone, againe. The e of the genitive and plural was 
often retained, as in yeares, dreames, mindes, houres. 
The present final -y is frequently represented by />, as 
easie and busie. Numerous other examples could be 
cited of variations from the orthography now em- 
ployed ; but these are sufficient to indicate, in a gen- 
eral way, their nature. 

The latter part of the seventeenth century shows 
the progress towards the modern form very plainly. 
At the beginning of the eighteenth century the present 
orthography was pretty nearly established ; though, in 
regard to numerous words, there was still wide diversity 
of usage. It was not until after the publication of Dr. 
Johnson's dictionary, in 1755, that the existing spell- 
ing can be said J;o have become universally received. 
That given by him to words has .been the one gener- 
ally followed by all later writers. The variations that 
have taken place in the orthography since his time 
have been neither numerous nor important. One of 
the most significant, for instance, though in itself really 
insignificant, is the general dropping of the final -k 



1 82 English Language. 

from such words as domestick, musick, publick, as they 
were authorized m his dictionary. Worse than all, a 
deference has sprung up for our present spelling which 
is not justified by anything in its character. Orthog- 
raphy was a matter about which Johnson was totally 
incompetent to decide. Yet, largely in consequence 
of the respect and even reverence still paid to that 
which he saw fit to employ, the spelling of Enghsh 
continues to be probably the most vicious to be found 
in any cultivated tongue that ever existed. With a 
number of sounds for the same sign, and again with a 
number of signs for the same sound, it is in no sense 
a guide to pronunciation, which is its only proper 
office. Even for derivation — an office for which it 
was never designed — it is almost equally worthless, 
save in the case of words of direct Latin origin. 

Wide Extension of English. — During the modern 
period of its history, EngHsh has been carried over 
a large share of the habitable globe, and the number 
of those who speak it is constantly increasing. Under 
conditions that existed in former times, this fact could 
be followed but by one result. Different tongues 
would have sprung up in different countries, varying 
from each other, and varying more or less from their 
common mother; and the differences would have 
constantly tended to become more marked with the 
progress of time. But there are two agencies now in 
existence that will be more than sufficient to prevent 
any such result. These are, first, the common pos- 
session of a great Hterature accessible to men of every 



Flit lire of the English Tongue. 183 

rank and every country; and, secondly, the constant 
interchange of population that results from the facility 
of modern communication. Joined to these is the 
steadily increasing attention paid to the diffusion of 
education, the direct effect of which is to destroy dia- 
lectic differences, and make the literary speech the one 
standard to which all conform. These agencies become 
year by year more wide-reaching and controlling. The 
forces that tend to bring about unity are now so much 
more powerful than those that tend to bring about 
diversity, and the former are so constantly gaining in 
strength, that deviation on any large scale between the 
language as spoken in Great Britain and in its Colonies, 
and in America, can now be looked upon as hardly 
possible. 

This brings us directly to the discussion of a ques- 
tion with which the general history of English may 
properly conclude : What is to be the future of our 
tongue ? Is it steadily tending to become corrupt, as 
constantly asserted by so many who are laboriously 
devoting their lives to preserve it in its purity ? The 
fact need not be denied, if by it is meant, that, within 
certain limits, the speech is always moving away from 
established usage. The history of language is the his- 
tory of corruptions. The purest of speakers uses every 
day, with perfect propriety, words and forms, which, 
looked at from the point of view of the past, are im- 
proper, if not scandalous. But the blunders of one 
age become good usage in the following, and, in proc- 
ess of time, grow to be so consecrated by custom and 



184 English Language. 

consent, that a return to practices theoretically correct 
would seem Hke a return to barbarism. While this 
furnishes no excuse for lax and slovenly methods of 
expression, it is a guaranty that the indulgence in 
them by some, or the adoption of them by all, will not 
necessarily be attended by any serious injury to the 
tongue. Vulgarity and tawdriness and affectation, and 
numerous other characteristics which are manifested 
by the users of language, are bad enough ; but it is a 
gross error to suppose that they have of themselves 
any permanently serious effect upon the purity of 
national speech. They are results of imperfect train- 
ing; and, while the great masters continue to be 
admired and read and studied, they are results that 
will last but for a time. 

The causes which bring about the decline of a lan- 
guage are, in truth, of an entirely different type. It 
is not the use of particular words or idioms, it is not 
the adoption of peculiar rhetorical devices, that con- 
tribute either to the permanent well-being or corrup- 
tion of any tongue. These are the mere accidents of 
speech, the fashion of a time which passes away with 
the causes that gave it currency. Far back of these 
lie the real sources of decay. Language is no better 
and no worse than the men who speak it. The terms 
of which it is composed have no independent vitahty 
in themselves : it is the meaning which the men who 
use them put into them, that gives them all their 
power. It is never language in itself that becomes 
weak or corrupt : it is only when those who use it • 



Future of the English Tongue. 185 

become weak or corrupt, that it shares in their degra- 
dation. Nothing but respect need be felt or expressed 
for that sohcitude which strives to maintain the purity 
of speech ; yet when unaccompanied by a far-reaching 
knowledge of its history, but, above all, by a thorough 
comprehension of the principles which underlie the 
growth of language, efforts of this kind are as certain 
to be full of error as they are lacking in result. There 
has never been a time in the history of Modern Eng- 
lish in which there have not been men who fancied 
that they foresaw its decay. From the sixteenth to 
the nineteenth century on, our hterature, whenever it 
touches upon the character of the vehicle by which 
it is conveyed, is full of the severest criticism ; and 
its pages are crowded with unavailing protests against 
the introduction of that which now it hardly seems 
possible for us to do without, and, along with these, 
with mournful complaints of the degeneracy of the 
present, and with melancholy forebodings for the 
future. So it always has been ; so it is always likely 
to be. Yet the real truth is, that the language can be 
safely trusted to take care of itself, if the men who 
speak it take care of themselves ; for with their degree 
of development, of cultivation, and of character, it 
will always be found in absolute harmony. 

In fact, it is not from the agencies that are com- 
monly supposed to be corrupting that our speech at 
the present time suffers ; it is in much more danger 
from ignorant efforts made to preserve what is called 
its purity. Rules have been and still are laid down 



lS6 English Language, 

for the use of it^ which never had any existence out- 
side of the minds of grammarians and verbal critics. 
By these rules, so far as they are observed, freedom of 
expression is cramped, idiomatic peculiarity destroyed, 
and false tests for correctness set up, which give the 
ignorant opportunity to point out supposed error in 
others ; while the real error Hes in their own imperfect 
acquaintance with the best usage. One illustration 
will be sufficient of multitudes that might be cited. 
There is a rule of Latin syntax that two or more sub- 
stantives joined by a copulative require the verb to be 
in the plural. This has been foisted into the grammar 
of English, of which it is no more true than it is of 
modern German. There is nothing in the usage of 
the past, from the very earliest times, to authorize it ; 
nothing in the usage of the present to justify it, except 
so far as the rule itself has tended to make general 
the practice it imposes. The grammar of English, as 
exhibited in the utterances of its best writers and 
speakers, has, from the very earliest period, allowed 
the widest discretion as to the use either of the singu- 
lar or the plural in such cases. The importation and 
imposition of rules foreign to its idiom, like the one 
just mentioned, does more to hinder the free develop- 
ment of the tongue, and to dwarf its freedom of ex- 
pression, than the widest prevalence of slovenhness of 
speech, or of affectation of style ; for these latter are 
always temporary in their character, and are sure to be 
left behind by the advance in popular cultivation, or 
forgotten through the change in popular taste. 



Future of the English Tongue. 187 

It cannot indeed be laid down too emphatically 
that it is not the business of grammarians or scholars 
to decide what is good usage. Their function is lim- 
ited to ascertaining and recording it. This can only 
be done by the prolonged and careful study of the 
language, as it has been employed by its best authors. 
It is they who settle by their practice what is correct 
or incorrect, and not the arbitrary preferences or 
prejudices of writers on usage or grammar. These 
constantly assume an authority to which they are not 
entitled. Ignorant of their own ignorance, they con- 
demn because they fail to understand. The grammar 
of different periods does, it is true, vary to some ex- 
tent. What is right at one time may become wrong 
at another. Still, as a general rule, he who studies 
faithfully the great masters of English literature need 
rarely feel any hesitation about adopting the words or 
phrases or expressions which have received the sanc- 
tion of their usage. 

Of the languages of Christendom, EngHsh is the one 
now spoken by far the largest number of persons; 
and from present appearances there would seem to 
be but little limit to its possible extension. Yet that 
it or any other tongue will ever become a universal 
language is so much more than doubtful, that it may be 
called impossible ; and, even were it possible, it is a 
question if it would be desirable. However that may 
be, its spread will depend in the future, as it has 
depended in the past, not so much upon the charac- 



1 88 English Language. 

ter of the language itself, as upon the character of the 
men who speak it. It is not necessarily because it is 
in reality superior to other tongues, that it has beconae 
mere widely extended than they, but because it has 
been and still is the speech of two great nations which 
have been among the foremost in civilization and 
power, the most greedy in the grasping of territory, 
the most successful in the planting of colonies. But 
as political reasons have lifted the tongue into its 
present prominence, so in the future to political rea- 
sons will be owing its progress or decay. Thus, 
behind everything that tends to the extension of 
language, lie the material strength, the intellectual 
development and the moral character, which make 
the users of a language worthy enough and powerful 
enough to impose it upon others. No speech can do 
more than express the ideas of those who employ it 
at the time. It cannot live upon its past meanings, or 
upon the past conceptions of great men that have 
been recorded in it, any more than the race which 
uses it can live upon its past glory or its past achieve- 
ments. Proud, therefore, as we may now well be of 
our tongue, we may rest assured, that, if it ever attain 
to universal sovereignty, it will do so only because the 
ideas of the men who speak it are fit to become the 
ruling ideas of the world, and the men themselves are 
strong enough to carry them over the world ; and that, 
in the last analysis, depends, like everything else, upon 
the development of the individual ; depends, not upon 
the territory we buy or steal, not upon the gold we 



Future of the E^tglish Tongue, 189 

mine, or the grain we grow, but upon the men we 
produce. If we fail there, no national greatness, 
however splendid to outward view, can be anything 
but temporary and illusory ; and, when once national 
greatness disappears, no past achievement in Hterature, 
however glorious, will perpetuate our language as a liv- 
ing speech, though they may help for a while to i-^t^rd 
its decay. 



Part II. 
HISTORY OF INFLECTIONS. 



CHAPTER I. 

^OME FEATURES COMMON TO ALL THE TEUTONIC 
TONGUES. 

I . He who contrasts the English of the Anglo-Saxon 
period with the English of to-day is at once struck by 
the difference between the ancient and the modern 
tongue in respect to vocabulary and inflection. It 
is with the latter alone that we have to do in the 
following pages. Its history is largely a record of 
abandonment of forms once deemed necessary, and 
of confusion in the use of those that were retained. 
Nevertheless, it would be a great error to suppose that 
loss or change of inflection is especially characteristic 
of the later life of our language as distinguished from 
the earlier. Even when our speech made its first ap- 
pearance in a few written monuments of the seventh 
and eighth centuries, it had then already given up 
much that once belonged to it. The stripping of 
inflection from the English tongue had begun long 
before any productions which have been handed down 
had been composed in it. Many of the irregular forms 
which are still found at this day owe their existence, 
and their apparently anomalous character, to changes 
193 



194 English Language, 

that had taken place before a word of our language 
had been committed to writing; in periods, indeed, 
as to which it is absolutely unknown where even the 
men were living who spoke our speech. 

2. But, without the aid of written monuments, how 
can we know this to be a fact ? How can we be sure 
that forms once existed in our tongue which have 
never been preserved in its literature ? The answer 
to these questions not only renders necessary an ac- 
count of the characteristics of the inflection prevailing in 
the earliest period of English, but, to some extent, also 
an examination of certain features which are common 
to it with the other Teutonic tongues. Its precise 
relations to them, the grammatical peculiarities that 
distinguish them all, must be clearly comprehended, 
before the student can understand the reason of the 
general tendencies which have manifested themselves 
in the history of our inflection, or the origin of the 
particular anomalies which are still retained in it. 

3. It has already been stated that English is a mem- 
ber of a family of languages, called the Teutonic or 
Germanic, which itself forms one branch of a still 
larger family, termed the Indo-European, or the 
Aryan.-^ All the tongues belonging to the latter have 
come from the same source. They are, therefore, 
more or less remotely allied to one another. But no 
record of this one primitive Indo-European speech 
exists, no monuments of it have been preserved, from 
which its words and forms can be gathered. We are, 

1 See introductory chapter. 



TJie Primitive Teutonic Speech. 195 

therefore, under the necessity of making out what 
these words and forms must have been, by a compari- 
son, in accordance with certain scientific principles, of 
the languages that have been derived from this un- 
known original tongue. Words and forms which are 
common to all its descendants, it is very safe to say, 
must have existed in the parent-speech. In most 
cases they are naturally more changed and disguised 
in appearance, the more remote they are from it in 
time. Looked at from this point of view, it may be 
said that, as a general rule, the older the tongue, the 
closer is the resemblance it is likely to bear to the 
original from which it came. Accordingly, Sanskrit, 
with a literature going back to at least fifteen hundred, 
and probably two thousand, years before Christ, is 
conceded to be much nearer, on the whole, in its 
forms and inflections, to the primitive Indo-European 
than any of its numerous sister-languages. 

4. A similar statement is true of that branch of 
the Indo-European family to which English belongs. 
There are in existence no monuments of the primitive 
Teutonic speech from which all the members of the 
branch have descended. The words and forms con- 
stituting it can only be made out, in the same manner 
as in the case of the primitive Indo-European, by a 
scientific comparison of those found in the derived 
tongues. Necessarily, the older languages of this 
branch, of which monuments have been handed down, 
are of the first importance. Of these the Gothic, 
whose scanty literature goes back to the fourth cen- 



196 English Language. 

tury after Christ, must be regarded as presenting, on 
the whole, much the nearest Hkeness to that theoreti- 
cal primitive Teutonic speech which is the common 
parent of all. But the other older languages belonging 
to this sub-family are also of importance. These are 
the Old Norse, the Old High German, and the Low- 
Germanic tongues, the Low Frankish, the Old Saxon, 
the Old Frisian, and that English of the earKest period 
which has had given to it in ordinary usage the name 
of Anglo-Saxon. 

5. All these tongues had many things in com- 
mon. In particular, loss of inflection not only charac- 
terized the primitive Teutonic as compared with the 
primitive Lido-European, but also characterized the 
members of the Teutonic branch as compared with 
their immediate parent. Some of the earliest tongues 
retained more than others ; the Gothic, as the old- 
est, naturally retained the most of any. Each one 
of them, however, clung to particular forms and in- 
flections which the others had given up partly or 
wholly. Before considering the special later history of 
EngHsh, it is therefore desirable to point out some 
general resemblances which existed between it in its 
earliest state, and the sister-languages of the same 
Teutonic branch. When once the common basis from 
which they started is understood, the later relations of 
each to the others immediately become much clearer. 
Especially does the later history of our tongue have 
light thrown upon it by the development which has 
characterized the rest. We shall, in this place, limit 



Case in the Primitive Tetttonic. 197 

ourselves to the general features that mark the tnflec- 
tion of the noun, the adjective, and the pronoun, in 
order to make plain the loss sustained by the primitive 
Teutonic as compared with the primitive Indo-Euro- 
pean, and further the loss of the English as compared 
with the parent Teutonic. The characteristics 'of the 
verb, so far as they are examined at all, will be dis- 
cussed by themselves. 

6. Case. — The primitive Indo-European had eight 
cases. These were the nominative, the subject of the 
sentence ; the accusative, the case of the direct object ; 
the dative, the case of the indirect object ; the genitive, 
the case of general relation, or the of case 3 the instru- 
mental, the case denoting accompaniment and means, 
the with or by case ; the ablative, the case denoting 
separation, the from case ; the locative, the case de- 
noting the place where any thing is or is done, the at 
or in case ; and the vocative, or the case of address. 
All of these were originally distinguished by difference 
of ending But the tendency showed itself, from the 
earliest period of which we have any record, to give 
up one or more of these case-forms. When this result 
occurred, one of two things happened. Either the 
place of the case that was abandoned was taken by 
another case with a preposition, or one case was made 
to do the duty of another in addition to its own. Thus, 
in Latin, the ablative was required to perform the instru- 
mental relation, and, in Greek, the genitive the ablative 
relation. 

7. Of these eight cases the primitive Teutonic still 



198 English Language, 

retained six, though only four of them could be said 
to exist in full vigor. The two that were lost from 
this branch were the ablative and the locative. Two 
others, the vocative and the instrumental, maintained 
a lingering life. A special form for the vocative is 
found in the noun of the Gothic. The instrumental 
is occasionally but clearly seen in the singular of the 
noun and adjective in the Old High German and the 
Old Saxon, and in the demonstrative pronouns of all 
the early Teutonic tongues, save the Old Norse. It is 
Hkewuse regarded by miany as belonging to the x\nglo- 
Saxon noun and adjective. But the remaining four 
cases are found in all the older languages of this 
branch, including, of course, Anglo-Saxon, and still 
survive in one of them, the New High German. 

8. Number. — The primitive Indo-European had 
three numbers, — the singular, the dual, and the plural. 
In the Teutonic noun and adjective the dual had dis- 
appeared entirely. The Gothic retained it to some 
extent in the verb. In the personal pronouns of the 
first and second person, how^ever, it is found in all the 
earlier languages of this branch, save that, in some of 
them, forms for certain cases are very rare, if not lack- 
ing entirely. 

9. Declension. — There are two declensions of the 
Teutonic noun. They are termed respectively the 
vowel or strong, and the consonant or weak declension ; 
but in the older languages they underwent still further 
division. The vowel-declension was spHt up into three, 
according as one of the short vow^els, — to which a 



Decle7tsio7i in tlie Primitive Tetttonic, 199 

was the corresponding feminine — or / or tc, was the 
final of the formative syllable, or itself the formative 
syllable, added to the radical syllable to make the stem. 
The endings of the noun had been frequently so cut 
down, even in the earliest Teutonic tongues, that in the 
majority of cases there can be found in the nominative 
only a remnant of the additions originally made to the 
radical syllable. In Anglo-Saxon the abbreviation was 
carried still further, so that often nothing but the radi- 
cal syllable itself was left. Thus the word for ^ fish ' is 
in Gothic fisks, in Old Norse fiskr^ while in our early 
speech it is simply yfj-^. It is to be added that original 
generally became a in the Teutonic tongues, and 
hence the ^-declension was for a long period com- 
monly called the (^-declension. 

10. In each one of these subordinate declensions 
in 0, in /, and in u, the nouns had different inflections, 
according as they were of the masculine, the feminine, 
or the neuter gender. Consequently, in the primitive 
Teutonic, there were probably nine different inflections 
belonging to the vowel-declension. Still this system 
can nowhere be found, if it ever really existed, in its 
theoretical perfection. There is, for example, not a 
single neuter noun belonging to the /-declension in 
any one of the earliest Teutonic tongues ; and there 
are numerous other indications that this system was 
losing everywhere its complex character. In particu- 
lar in the Anglo-Saxon the declension in had practi- 
cally absorbed the declension in,^, the special termi- 
nations of the latter having been abandoned, and those 



200 English Langttage. 

of the former having been substituted. There was, 
besides, but very Kttle left of the /-declension, its words 
having largely gone over to the (^-declension. 

11. Again, of the primitive Indo-European conso- 
nant declensions, only the one in which the stem ended 
in -an was retained in the Teutonic. Accordingly the 
weak or consonant declension is sometimes called 
the ;z-declension. This became a favorite declension 
in the Teutonic tongues, and existed in full vigor in 
all the early ones. In them it had inflections some- 
what distinct, according as the noun was masculine, 
feminine, or neuter, though these differences were far 
from being as marked as in the vowel declensions. 

12. But though the /^-declension was the one 
consonant declension that really flourished in the 
early Teutonic languages, there still continued to sur- 
vive in them relics of other consonant declensions 
once of wide employment in the primitive tongue. 
Nor have they died out entirely in our present speech. 
To them belong nouns like man and tooth, which still 
exhibit vowel-modification in the plural; others like 
month, and night, and cow, which, though they have 
come to be declined regularly, show traces of their 
ancient inflection in terms like ' twelvemonth,' ^ fort- 
night,' and the dialectic ^kye'; and certain, having 
stems in -r or in -nd, such as nouns denoting the family 
relation like father and hi'other, or present participles 
used as nouns, such as were originally /r/>;^^ and fiend. 
These and others which could be mentioned are, 
however, so few in number comparatively that they 
are properly treated as anomalous. 



Declension in the Primitive Teutonic. 20 r 

13. There is also a third declension, unlike either 
of the two just mentioned, which is found in pronouns 
and adjectives. Its peculiar characteristics will be 
seen further on. Besides these general features, com- 
mon to the inflection of the Teutonic noun, adjective, 
and pronoun, there were certain peculiarities con- 
nected with the changes in vowels or consonants that 
need to be described here, for they have been per- 
petuated through all periods of English. They are 
not confined, however, to any particular parts of 
speech. 

14. One of these is the tendency in inflection of 
certain letters to pass into others. There were several 
Instances of this nature in the early Teutonic tongues. 
For example, in the inflection of the Anglo-Saxon 
verb ^ not unfrequently passed into d, a result of 
which, though disguised, can still be observed in the 
preterite cou{l)d and the adjective U7i-couth} But a 
more striking exemplification of this practice is the 
passing of s into r, which goes sometimes under the 
name of rhotacism. This particular transition was by 
no means uncommon in many of the Indo-European 
languages, and is familiarly exempHfied in the Latin 
comparative of the adjective ; as, for instance, /^r/-/^r, 
fort-ius. Among the Teutonic tongues it was most 
widely employed in the Old Norse ; but in Anglo- 
Saxon it was occasionally found. A trace of it can 
still be seen in the adjectives lo^^n and forlorn, origi- 
nally the past participles oi -leosan, ^ to lose/ and/^r- 

1 See Part II., sec. 414. 



202 English Language, 

leosan, ^to lose entirely' (182). But there is one 
marked example of it in Modern English in the imper- 
fect of the substantive verb, which has for its singular 
was, but for its plural we7'e instead of wese. 

15. Far more conspicuous and important has been 
and is the part played by vowel-variation. This, as 
used in this work, will be employed to denote any 
change of vowel-sound, no matter from what cause 
arising, that takes place within the radical syllable. It 
will, therefore, denote alike the changes seen in inflec- 
tion in such words as man, men, in sell, sold, in drive, 
drove, and in the formation of new words from the 
same root, sometimes closely related in meaning, some- 
times widely differing, as may be exemplified by band 
and l?07id, and numerous others. Two kinds of vowel- 
variation will be defined more specifically. 

16. The first is vowel-change (German, ablaut). 
This is especially seen in the change of the vowel of 
the radical syllable, by which the inflection of verbs 
of the strong conjugation was and still is denoted. 
Familiar examples are begirt, began; thrive, throve; 
tear, tore. Under this head will also be included that 
class of strong verbs which formed the preterite by 
reduplication — that is, by the repetition of the stem 
syllable with more or less of abbreviation and modifi- 
cation. Examples of this practice can be observed in 
the Latin mordeo, mo-mordi ; ttmdo, tu-tundi ; cano, 
ce-cini. This method of forming the preterite has 
been plainly preserved in the Gothic alone of the 
Teutonic tongues. In the other languages of this 



Vowel-Change, 203 

branch of the Indo-European family but faint traces 
of it can now be discovered. 

17. The Gothic has some forty verbs in which this 
redupHcation appears. Even in that tongue, it had so 
far departed from the theoretical primitive type, that 
only the initial letter of the root was repeated with a 
constant vowel-sound denoted by ai (thus, present, 
^/(^;/^^, ^ blend,' preterite, /^(^/^/d:;/^/, ^blended'; pres- 
ent, halda, ' hold,' preterite, haihald, ^ held ' ; present, 
Si£pa, ^ sleep,' preterite, saizlep, ^ slept'). But, in the 
other Teutonic dialects, the abbreviation had been 
carried still further. Not only was the final letter or 
letters of the reduplicational syllable dropped, but the 
initial letter of the radical syllable and, in some cases, 
the vowel also of the radical syllable. The redupli- 
cational and radical syllables were thus united into 
one ; and, in Anglo-Saxon verbs of this kind^ the 
result of this contraction was a monosyllabic preterite 
with the vowel e, e, or the diphthong eo, lo running 
through both the singular and the plural. Taking the 
three verbs above given, blandan, healdan, and sl^pan, 
we have, accordingly, in Anglo-Saxon, the presents, 
blende, healde, and sl^pe, the preterites, blend, heold, 
and slep. In a few cases only is this primitive redu- 
plication clearly discernible in our early tongue. Thus 
Gothic haitan, 'to call,' has as preterite haihait; the 
corresponding Anglo-Saxon hatan has for its preterite 
heht 

18. The second kind of vowel-variation is in this 
work termed vowel-modification (German, umlaut). 



204 E}tglish Language. 

It is in Modern English exemplified in the inflection 
of a number of nouns, such as inan^ men ; foot, feet ; 
mouse, mice. It is not only widely different in its 
character from vowel- change, it is likewise widely dif- 
ferent in its origin. It was not known to the Gothic ; 
it is comparatively infrequent in Old High German ; 
but in the other Teutonic tongues it is prevalent, 
especially in the Norse. In Anglo-Saxon it was prin- 
cipally caused by the influence of the vowel / of a fol- 
lowing syllable. 

19. Vowel-modification is the variation of sound 
produced in a radical syllable by the influence of a 
vowel in the syllable added, usually an added inflec- 
tional syllable. It is a noticeable fact, that, under 
certain circumstances, the vowel of an added syllable 
has often a tendency to modify the vowel of a stressed 
syllable to which the addition is made. Before pro- 
nouncing the vowel of the first syllable, the thought of 
the vowel of the following one comes into the mind. 
Unconsciously there is an effort to bring about a simi- 
larity of sound ; and the result is, that a sound is 
given to the vowel of the first syllable intermediate 
between the sound it had previously and the sound of 
the vowel in the syllable added. This is seen, for 
illustration, in the word ^nig, ^any/ derived from an, 
' one,' and the suffix -ig, Modern English -y. The 
influence of the vowel of the added syllable has been 
sufficient to change the vowel of the primitive from 
a to ^. 

20. This modification of the vowel of the preced- 



Vowel-Modification. 20$ 

ing syllable was produced by several vowels ; but, as 
has just been said, it was the influence of a following 
/ that was most conspicuous in Anglo-Saxon. In this 
matter it made no difference whether the original i 
itself still continued to be found, or had disappeared 
entirely, or had been changed into another vowel. 
The result remained. Only a few of the variations 
wrought by this vowel will be indicated here. The 
influence of the / of a following syllable changed a of 
a preceding accented syllable to e ; changed o usually 
and u regularly to y ; changed ^ to ^ and ^ to J^ ; and 
changed the diphthongs ea and eo to />, later i or y. 
Thus the o of gold became gylde?t, ' gilden, golden/ 
in the derived adjective, and the o of dom^ ' doom,' 
became deman, ' to deem,' in the derived verb. 
Again, the Anglo-Saxon/^/, ^foot,' has in the nomina- 
tive and accusative plural/^/, ' feet,' and also the same 
form in the dative singular. The change of ^ to ^ in 
these cases of the noun is due to the influence of an 
/, which once belonged to them as an additional sylla- 
ble, but which had come to be dropped. But though 
the cause disappeared, the effect continued. Men 
retained in their speech the modification wrought by 
the vowel after the fact had been long forgotten that 
the vowel itself had ever been added ; and this is 
equally true of the other instances adduced. 

21. This concludes all that is necessary to be said 
here of the features common to Enghsh with the other 
Teutonic tongues. Before entering, however, upon 
the later specific history of the inflection of our Ian- 



2o6 English Language, 

guage, it is important to have clearly in mind the 
terminology here employed, and, though already given 
in full, it will bear repetition.-^ The history of the 
language is in this work divided into four periods : 
the first, called the Anglo-Saxon, extending from the 
coming of the Teutonic tribes to the year 1150; the 
second, the Old English, extending from 1150 to 
1350; the third, the Middle English, from 1350 to 
1550 ; and the fourth, the Modern EngHsh, from 1550 
to the present time. Furthermore, whenever it is 
desired to cover the whole period between 1150 and 
1550, the term Early English is employed. It is also 
to be remembered, that, during the Old and Middle 
EngHsh periods, the language both of literature and 
of daily life was divided into three great dialects, 
called, from their geographical position, the Northern, 
the Midland, and the Southern ; and that literary 
English is a descendant of the Midland, and that 
the Scotch dialect belongs to the Northern.^ 

22. There is still another point which needs special 
consideration before entering upon the internal history 
of our tongue. This is the important fact, that, from 
the beginning of the twelfth century to the middle of 
the fourteenth century, — and the hmits might be 
extended, — there was no such thing as standard 
English. Everything, in consequence; was fluctuat- 
ing and uncertain. No authority existed anywhere, as 
to the use of words and grammatical forms, to which 
all felt themselves obhged to submit. Every writer 

1 See page 87. 2 gee page 121 ff. 



Periods of Comparison. 207 

was, to a large extent, a law unto himself, and followed 
the special dialect of his own district in the lack of 
a generally recognized standard which could not be 
safely violated. But a tongue spHt up into dialects, 
and possessing nowhere binding rules for syntactical 
agreement and arrangement, nor authoritative methods 
of inflection, can hardly be said to have a history of 
any general orderly development of its own. The 
account which is given of it can never be much more 
than a classification of the differences of speech pre- 
vailing in different sections of the country, or a record 
of the peculiarities of grammar and vocabulary that 
characterize individual writers. 

23. This is a condition of things which conspicuously 
characterized our speech during the Old Enghsh period. 
In it, at that time, can be found the processes going 
on in full activity that destroyed the language of htera- 
ture as seen in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and, 
likewise, the regenerating processes going on that were 
to develop the language of hterature of the fourteenth 
and the following centuries. It is only between these 
clearly defined points that comparison can properly 
be made ; and, even at the beginning of the latter 
period, the language of literature is rather in process 
of formation than actually formed. Still, after the 
break up of the classical x\nglo-Saxon, the fourteenth 
century is the first period in which anything can be 
called fixed, and in which, in consequence, any com- 
parison can be made between the past and what is 
existing. In the conflicting usage of this time also, 



2o8 English Language. 

the Midland dialect is necessarily selected, to the ex- 
clusion of the other two, because from it Modern 
English strictly descended; and of the authors who 
wrote in the Midland, with more or less diversity of 
usage among themselves, the language of Chaucer is 
likewise necessarily selected as representative, not only 
because he was much the greatest of all, but more 
especially because his works had a greater influence on 
the future development of the speech than the works 
of all the others put together. The two points, there- 
fore, selected in representing the forms prevalent in 
the early history of the language will be ordinarily the 
tenth and eleventh centuries, — the period of the 
later classic West-Saxon dialect of Anglo-Saxon, — 
and the latter half of the fourteenth century, which 
witnessed the birth of Modern English literature in the 
strict sense of that phrase. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE NOUN. 

24. The following general statements may be made 
of the English noun during the Anglo-Saxon period. 
It had, — 

1. Two declensions : the vowel or strong, and the 
consonant or weak. The former was limited mainly 
to stems which ended originally in o (9), although 
there were remains of those in / and u, especially 
of the one in /. The latter was mainly limited to the 
stems ending m -n (11), fragments remaining only of 
those in -r, in -nd, in -os and -es, and some other 
letters (12). 

2. Two numbers : the singular and the plural. 

3. Four cases : the nominative, the genitive, the 
dative, and the accusative. Many grammarians, fol- 
lowing Grimm,^ add a fifth, the instrumental. This 
was at one time distinguished from the dative in the 
singular by marking for the former the final -^, common 
to both, as long -1 ; but the practice is no longer con- 
tinued. There is no difference at all in the plural. 

1 " Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache," 936, 
209 



2IO 



English Language, 



4. Three genders : the masculine, the feminine, 
and the neuter. As will be seen by the examples, it 
is grammatical, not natural gender. 

25. The following paradigms of the masculine 
nouns, Stan, ^ stone,' and e7ide^ ' end * ; of the feminines 
caru, ^ care,' and wund, ' wound ' ; and of the neuters 
hors, ^ horse,' and scip, 'ship,' will exhibit the vari- 
ous inflections of the noun of the vowel- declension 
as commonly seen in the Anglo-Saxon. The vowel 
of the stem, has in certain of the cases been often 
dropped altogether, or has been weakened, or changed 
into other vowels. 

I. Vowel Declension. 



SINGULAR. 



Masculine. 



Feminine. 



Nom. 


Stan, 


% 

ende, 


caru, 


wund, 


Gen, 


stanes, 


endes, 


care, 


wunde, 


Dat, 


stane, 


ende, 


care, 


wunde, 


Ace. 


Stan. 


ende. 

PLURAL. 


care. 


wunde. 




Masculine. 







Nom, stanas, 
Gen, stana, 



endas, 
enda, 



Dat. stanum, endum, 
Ace, stanas. endas. 



cara, 
f cara, 
^ carena, 

carum, 

cara. 



wunda, 

wunda, 

wundum, 
wunda. 



Vowel Declension of the Noun. 2 1 1 

SINGULAR. 

Neuter. 

t * A 

hors, scip, 

horses, scipes, 
horse, scipe, 
hors. scip. 

PLURAL. 

Neuter. 

/ ^^— ^— — — % 

hors, scipu, 

horsa, scipa, 

horsum, . scipum, . 

hors. scipu. 

26. Nouns originally belonging to the other two 
vowel declensions, that is, those whose stems ended 
in / or u^ had, even in the Anglo-Saxon, gone over 
wholly or partially to the ^-declension. There were 
no small number of feminines, however, which be- 
longed still to the /-declension ; but their forms had 
become largely confused with those of the prevailing 
declension in o. As none of them had any influence 
upon the later development of the inflection, their 
consideration is omitted here altogether. 

27. The consonant, or, more specifically, the con- 
sonant declension in -n, will be exemplified by para- 
digms of the masculine noun oxa^ ' ox/ of the 
feminine, tunge, ^tongue,' and of the neuter, ~eage-y 
' eye.' The stems are oxan^ tungan, and lagan. 



212 



Efzglish Language. 



But not only have the original case- endings usually 
disappeared j in some instances, the -n also has been 
dropped, or the a weakened into e. 

II. Consonant Declension. 







SINGULAR. 






Masculine. 


Feminine. 


Neuter. 


Nom, 


oxa, 


tunge, 


eage, 


Gen. 


oxan, 


tungan, 


eagan, 


Dat. 


oxan, 


tungan, 


eagan, 


Ace. 


oxan. 


tungan. 
PLURAL. 


eage. 




Masculine. 


Feminine. 


Neuter. 


Nom. 


oxan, 


tungan, 


eagan, 


Ge7i. 


oxena, 


tungena, 


eagena, 


Dat. 


oxum, 


tungum, 


eagum, 


Ace. 


oxan. 


tungan. 


eagan. 



28. iVccording to some one of the paradigms found 
in sects. 25 and 27, the immense majority of all nouns 
were declined during the Anglo-Saxon period. There 
are a few exceptions, which will be referred to later. 
As between the vowel and the consonant declension, 
there was not much difference in the number of 
substantives belonging to each in the Anglo-Saxon ; 
and the foreign words that came in were inflected 
according to either. When endino' in a consonant. 



Confusion of the Notm Inflection. 213 

they were usually inflected according to the vowel 
declension, and, when in a vowel, according to the 
consonant. This state of things did not perpetuate 
itself. It is evident, on even a superficial examina- 
tion, that, of the six different inflections given above, 
Modern English has retained only that found in the 
masculine noun of the vowel declension, — the one 
represented by stan and ende. 

29. Still, for a century after the Norman Conquest, 
these difl'erent inflections were kept up with a fair 
degree of correctness. The changes that took place, 
such as they wxre, involved, however, as an inevitable 
consequence, the confusion of the declensions. One 
of these changes was the general weakening into e of 
the vowels a^ 0, and u of the endings. This manifested 
itself, indeed, long before the Conquest ; but the influ- 
ence of the literary speech was sufficient to keep it 
under restraint. As soon as that was removed, this 
general weakening of the vowels made rapid headway. 
In consequence of it, stanas and endas, for illustration, 
became stanes and endes ; caru became care ; scipu 
became scipe ; and oxan and tungan became oxen and 
tungen. So far, then, as difference of inflection was 
denoted by difference of vowel in the endings, all 
distinction between number, case, and declension had 
disappeared before the end of the twelfth century by 
the general use of ^ for the vowels previously employed. 

30. This was not enough of itself^ however, to over- 
throw the inflectional system of the noun. At this 
point another change came in to break down the 



214 English Language, 

broad distinction previously prevailing between the 
vowel and the consonant declension. After the mid- 
dle of the twelfth century, there was a constant ten- 
dency toward the assimilation of these two, from the 
arbitrary gains and losses that went on in the use of a 
single letter. This was n, which was of special im- 
portance from its terminating a large number of cases 
in the consonant declension. From these, however, it 
came in the twelfth century to be frequently dropped. 
This dropping of the final -n had, indeed, manifested 
itself, as early as the ninth century, in the West-Saxon 
dialect, though then more especially in the infinitive 
and subjunctive of the verb, and in the definite adjec- 
tive ; but here, again, as in the case of the weakening 
of the vowels a, o, and ^/^ to e, the literary language had 
arrested the movement. Within a century after the 
Conquest, however, the process had again begun. 
Thus the genitive, dative, and accusative singular of 
oxan, tungan^ and lagan of the consonant declension, 
after passing through the intermediate stages, oxen^ 
tmigen^ and ejen, became frequently, with the -n 
dropped, oxe^ tiinge, and eje. This brought them at 
the very outset into complete similarity with many 
nouns of the vowel declension, which, as we shall 
subsequently see, had also come to end in -e. 

31. The reduction of the various terminations of 
many nouns of the two declensions to the one ending 
-e had frequently, in consequence, the effect of render- 
ing it difficult to decide, in any given case, to which 
-of these two declensions any particular noun strictly 



Confttsio7i of the Noun Inflection. 215 

belonged. The result of this confusion can be clearly 
traced in the language for more than two hundred years 
after the Conquest. It was not uncommon, in the 
uncertainty that sprang up, for an -71 to be added to 
the dative and accusative singular of nouns belonging 
to the vowel declension. Thus Anglo-Saxon cyng, 
^king/ is a masculine noun inflected in the same man- 
ner as Stan. Accordingly, its dative and accusative sin- 
gular should strictly have been in late twelfth-century 
English, ki7ige and king respectively. As a matter of 
fact, they both sometimes appeared as kingen. This 
uncertainty added another element of confusion to 
that which already prevailed. So thoroughly con- 
founded, indeed, did these two declensions become, 
especially in the plural number, that it is by no means 
infrequent to find the same word, in the pages of the 
same author, sometimes with the plural -es of the mas- 
culine nouns of the vowel declension, or with the plural 
•en of the consonant. In the South of England in 
particular, it almost seems as if the two terminations 
could be used indiscriminately in the case of certain 
words. This peculiarity lasted down to the Middle 
English period. 

32. Nor, indeed, was this all. A third plural form, 
though far less commonly employed, came into use. 
Its ending was -e. It was derived from the weakened 
-a or -tc of the feminine and neuter nouns of the vowel 
declension, or from the dropping of -n of the con- 
sonant declension. The same author, therefore/ 
formed, at times, his plural with three different ter- 



2i6 English Language, 

minations ; or, rather, it is more proper to say that 
these three terminations appeared in different copies 
of the same work. Thus the two texts of the " Brut " 
of Layamon furnish, as plurals for the Anglo-Saxon 
masculine noun sfdn, the forms stanes, staneriy and 
stane ; for plurals of the neuter noun hors, the forms 
horses^ horse7i, and horse. 

33. Such a system as this, which was little more 
than the product of ignorance and confusion, had in 
itself no element of perpetuity. The process of sim- 
plifying inflection merely as a measure of rehef went 
on rapidly, in consequence, though much more so in 
the North than in the South. This simplification was 
eventually attained by discarding the terminations 
almost entirely. When, in the latter half of the four- 
teenth century, a new language of hterature appeared, 
the inflection of the noun had been reduced to nearly 
its present state. Whatever of it had been preserved 
conformed in general to that of the Anglo-Saxon mas- 
culine noun of the vowel declension, represented in 
the paradigm of stan. This is the inflection which 
became finally estabhshed in Enghsh speech. Its his- 
tory, therefore^ requires a more detailed examination 
of the endings of the cases belonging to it and of the 
gradual adoption of these endings by nouns originally 
inflected differently. 

34. First, as regards the simplification of the singu- 
lar. The fact, that, in this number, masculines and 
neuters of the vowel declension had precisely the 
same inflection, — as can be seen by comparing sta7i 



Assimilatio7t of the Cases, 21/ 

and hors, — had, doubtless, much to do with the 
universal adoption of the endings belonging to them ; 
for these two declensions united embraced a very 
large proportion of the nouns of the language. In 
these the nominative, dative, and accusative had 
largely come, in the time of Chaucer, to have the 
same form. In the case of words ending in a con- 
sonant, the process generally took place after this 
manner. The dative and accusative singular speedily 
began to lose, and by the fourteenth century had 
practically lost, all distinction of form. This was 
brought about in one of two ways. Either the dative 
sometimes dropped a final -e to which it was entitled ; 
or, secondly, and far more commonly, the accusative 
assumed a final -e to which it was not entitled. Thus 
the dative and accusative came to have the same 
form, sometimes ending, sometimes not ending, in a 
final -e. The same word, indeed, was not only treated 
in this respect differently by different authors, but dif- 
ferently at different places in the same manuscript. 
Thus, for illustration^ the dative and accusative of the 
Anglo-Saxon stan and hors would, in Early English, 
be represented in both cases, sometimes by ston and 
hors^ and sometimes by stone and horse, 

35. But the assimilation did not stop at this point. 
In Anglo-Saxon the form for the nominative and ac- 
cusative was alike in masculine and neuter nouns of 
the vowel declension. It was natural that it should 
continue to be regarded and treated as the same by 
the users of speech. When, therefore, the accusative 



21 8 English Language. 

assumed an -e which did not belong to it, the inevita- 
ble result was, that this -e should be added Hkewise to 
the nominative. Hence in a large number of instances 
nouns originally ending in a consonant early assumed 
and have since retained a final -e, to which etymologi- 
cally they are not entitled. 

36. This was a condition of things that would have 
been pretty certain to happen if no other influences 
than those already mentioned had been brought to 
bear ; but, as a matter of fact, a very powerful one 
from another quarter aided to hasten the accomplish- 
ment of this result. This w^as the fact that the nouns 
belonging to all the other declensions, which had 
begun to conform to the inflection of the masculine 
noun, had, by the weakening of the final vowel and 
the dropping of the final -n^ brought about indepen- 
dently the assimilation of the nominative, dative, and 
accusative. An examination of the changes through 
which carii^ and oxa went will make this perfectly 
clear. Cam had in Anglo-Saxon its dative and ac- 
cusative care : the weakening of the final -u to -e made 
its nominative of precisely the same form, care. So 
oxa, which in Early English became oxe, had origi- 
nally for dative and accusative oxan, which first 
became oxen, and then oxe. The result was, that, by 
the beginning of the Middle Enghsh period, the nomi- 
native, dative, and accusative of all nouns, had prac- 
tically become the same in form. Occasional instances 
do occur of a regular dative ending distinct from that 
of the nominative and accusative ; but they are merely 



Ge7iitive Singitlar of the Noim. 219 

scattered survivals of a distinction that was generally 
disregarded. 

37. There was one case of the singular, however, 
which did not share in the general movement towards 
simplification. This was the genitive. In the mascu- 
line and neuter nouns of the vowel declension, its 
ending was -es ; and to that it remained constant. 
Furthermore, this termination of these masculine and 
neuter nouns began, from the commencement of the 
Old Enghsh period, to encroach upon those of the 
genitives of the other declensions. Its only serious 
competitor was the ending in -e. This represented 
two distinct inflections. There was the genitive in -e 
of the feminine nouns of the vowel declension, repre- 
sented by caric and wund. There was another geni- 
tive in -e derived from the -an of the consonant 
declension, in which -an had first become -en and 
had then dropped the -n. The Anglo-Saxon hiafdige, 
which was early cut down to ladye, ^lady,' is a repre- 
sentative of this latter class. In this the form for the 
genitive was the same as the nominative, and nothing 
but the context can determine with certainty the 
case.^ For a long time genitives in -e from these two 
sources continued to be used ; and they are found as 
late as the literature of the latter half of the four- 
teenth century. But even then they were far from 



1 Lady from ladye in the following line is an example of this 
genitive : 

Which that he seide was oure lady veyl. 

Chaucer, Prologue to Canterbury Tales, 1. 695. 



220 English Laitgtcage. 

common ; and, in the following century, -r as a gem 
tive ending died out entirely, and -es was everywhere 
employed for all nouns, no matter what their origin. 

38. One further exception there was to the una- 
nimity exhibited in the early adoption of the ending 
-es. The r- stems which durvived in Anglo-Saxon 
belong to nouns indicating the family relation, such as 
fcBder^ brddo7% 77iddor, In these the form of the geni- 
tive was regularly the same as that of the nominative. 
This peculiarity of inflection lasted down into the 
Middle English period. Hence we find in Chaucer 
such expressions as ^^by my fader soule," ^^thy brother 
sone," in which fade7^ and b7'other are strict genitive 
forms:. All these nouns — fathe7^, 77iothe7% brothe7', 
slst^7'j and daughter — soon after adopted the standard 
genitive ending -es, which had, indeed, occasionally 
made its appearance in some of them at an early period. 

39. In the plural the process of simplification was 
even more thorough. Except in the case of a very 
few nouns, all the endings were reduced to one. This 
was derived from the termination -as, found in the 
nominative and accusative of masculine nouns of the 
vowel declension, as sta7t-as, e7id-as. This -as became 
'C; after the Conquest, which made its form exactly 
the same as that of the genitive singular, and thi^ 
characteristic it has retained through all the subse- 
quent history of the noun. 

40. One plural termination there was which was 
common in Anglo-Saxon to all nouns of whatever 
Jeclension. This w^as the -um of the dative, which 



Genitive Phtral of the Noun. 221 

has left a trace of itself in the adverb whilo??t, origi- 
nally the dative plural hwllum, from Iiwll, ' while.' It 
might naturally be expected that this particular end- 
ing, from the very universahty of its use, would be 
the last to be dropped. On the contrary^ it was one 
of the first to give way. Its early abandonment is sus- 
ceptible of an easy explanation. Even in the Anglo- 
Saxon monuments of the ninth century this ending -U7n 
frequently appeared as -on ; and the same statement 
is true of the centuries that followed. Within the 
first hundred years after the Conquest, this -on, from 
-zcni, not only was much more common than its original, 
but its vowel underwent the weakening that overtook all 
the vowels of the endings, and the termination became 
-en. This, in the case of nouns of the consonant de- 
clension, gave it the same form as the nominative and 
accusative plural, the -an of whose terminations had 
been weakened into -en also. In the confusion that 
soon sprang up in the use of the two leading declen- 
sions by the dropping or appending of the final -n, all 
distinctive character was taken away from the ending 
-um, after having passed into -en, as specially belong- 
ing to the dative plural. It speedily adopted, in con- 
sequence, the form that was found in the nominative 
and accusative, whether it was the -es of the vowel 
declension or the -en of the consonant. 

41. The genitive plural held out longer as a distinct 
termination. At least one form of it, -ene or -en, lasted 
down to the end of the fourteenth century. This -en{e) 
is derived from -ena, the regular termination of the geni- 



222 English Language. 

tive plural of all Anglo-Saxon nouns of the consonant 
declension, though in late Anglo-Saxon it had made 
its way into a few feminine nouns of the vowel. Still, 
when used in the Early Enghsh period, it was not 
limited to either of these inflections. For instance, 
in the phrase Christe kingene ky7ige} ^Christ, King of 
kings,' the word king receives this termination, though 
originally it was a masculine noun of the vowel declen- 
sion. But from the very outset, after the breaking up 
of the inflections of the original tongue, the form' of 
the genitive plural showed a tendency to assimilate 
itself to that of the nominative and accusative. By 
the beginning of the Middle English period, this had 
become the almost universally accepted rule. 

42. The endings of those two cases, the nominative 
and accusative plural, were at first usually either -es^ 
from the -as of the masculine vowel declension, or -en, 
from the -an of the consonant declension. Had these 
been kept sharply distinguished, and confined to the 
nouns to which they properly belonged, they would, 
doubtless, have both lasted to our time ; but, in the 
absence of any standard of authority, they were con- 
fused with one another, and even apphed at different 
times to the same noun, apparently at the mere fancy 
of the writer. This is at least true of the Southern 
dialect. Language, however, is too economical in the 
use of its material to permit long the employment of 
such double forms on any extensive scale. One of 
■hem had to disappear. In our tongue it was the 

i Langland's " Piers Plowman," Text B, passus xvii., 105 (about 
1377). 



Plurals of the Noun, 223 

plural in -en. In this simplification the Northern dia- 
lect, as usual, led the way; and one of the great 
points of contrast between it and the speech of the 
South was the scarcity of plurals in -e7i in the 
one, as compared with their frequency in the other. 
Indeed^ to this form the Southern dialect clung with 
so much tenacity, that there is little question that a 
large number of nouns with this ending would have 
been now in constant use, if that dialect had been the 
parent of Modern English, instead of the Midland. 
Not only did the speech of the South sometimes give 
to the same noun two plurals, — one in -es, and the 
other in -en ; but as has been pointed out, it frequently 
gave the termination -en to Anglo-Saxon nouns of the 
vowel declension as well as to those of the consonant. 
43. The Midland dialect, as usual, followed a path 
between the two extremes. In this respect, however, 
it was influenced much more by the example of the 
North. By the latter half of the fourteenth century 
it had generally discarded the ending -en, and the 
ending -es had become estabHshed as the regular 
form.^ In Chaucer, the representative author of the 
literary speech, we find the plural regularly terminat- 
ing in -es, or, in certain cases, simply in -s. The only 
relics of the original plurals in -an to be found in his 
writings are the following nine, — asshen, \ ashes ' ; 
assen, ' asses ' ; been, ' bees ' ; eyen, ^ eyes ' ; fleen, 

1 There were orthographic variations of this, due to difference of 
pronunciation, such as -w, -ys, -us ; but they do not need to be con- 
sidered here. 



224 English Langtcage, 

^ fleas ' ; flon^ ' arrows ' ; hose7i, ^ hose ' ; oxen ; and ton.^ 
^ toes/ Even of these the modern plurals in -s are 
also to be found employed by him in the case of ashes ^ 
bees, and toes. To this list may be added shoon, 
^ shoes/ which in Anglo-Saxon, however, belonged 
strictly to the masculine vowel declension, though it 
had occasionally plural forms of the consonant. This 
use of 'S as the regular termination of the plural, then 
firmly estabhshed, was never after subjected to change. 
It ought to be added that the third plural in -e, already 
described (32), had died out entirely; at least, in the 
confused use of final -<f, which had become current, 
it was no longer recognizable as distinct from the neu- 
ter forms which are now to be described. 

44. There is one fact which becomes apparent upon 
a close examination of the neuter monosyllabic nouns 
of the vowel declension (25). It is, that such of the 
nouns as had the radical vowel long did not assume 
the ending -u in the nominative and accusative plural. 
Nothing was added to the singular. Accordingly the 
forms for these two cases would be precisely alike in 
both numbers. This was true whether the vowel was 
long by nature, as in hus, ^ house ' ; gear, ' year ' ; deor, 
' animal ' ; or long by position before two consonants, 
as in hors, ' horse ' ; Ping, ' thing ' ; and folc, ^ folk.' 
Naturally, therefore, these nouns, even after the 
break-up of Anglo-Saxon, would be apt to have 
their plurals of the same form as the singular. But 
during the Old English period most of these neuters 
came gradually to conform to the declension of the 



Plural of Neuter Nouns, 225 

masculine nouns. They, in consequeuce, assumed -es 
in the plural. Occasionally some of them seem to 
have adopted -e^ the weakened form of the -u final of 
the plural of neuter nouns of the same declension, 
whose vowel was short. This was not often the case, 
however, and is from its very nature attended with 
uncertainty. The nominative singular itself was fre- 
quently disposed to assume a final -e. It becomes, 
therefore, impossible to say whether -^, when it occurs 
in the plural, is to be considered, in any particular 
instance, as a plural termination, or a mere inorganic 
addition to the word. But there is no question that 
by Chaucer's time the vast majority had accepted the 
plural in -es. Still some, such as thing, and hors, and 
folk, and year, were in a state of transition, and exhib- 
ited double forms, — one ending in -es, the other pre- 
cisely resembling the singular. In the case of certain 
of these words this same state of things continues to 
our day. A very few held on to the ancient inflection 
and never underwent any further change. 

45. If a comparison, accordingly, be made between 
the literary language at the beginning of the Middle 
English period and that prevalent during the Anglo- 
Saxon period, it will be observed that, in the centuries 
which intervened, the four cases of the noun, so far as 
they had been distinguished by differences of form in 
the singular, had now been reduced to two. Again, in 
the Anglo-Saxon plural, the nominative and accusative 
had never had any distinction of form ; but there had 
been special forms for the genitive and dative. These 



226 English Language. 

various terminations had now all been reduced to one, 
and that was, with a very few exceptions, the one 
which ended in -es. Accordingly, the paradigm of 
the Anglo-Saxon sian^ which had now come to stand 
as the general representative of the noun inflection, 
was the following : — 

Singular. Plural. 

Nom.f Dat.f and Ace. ston or stone, All Cases, stones. 

Genitive, stones. 

It is evident at a glance that this is practically the 
Modern English declension. The few slight changes 
that have since occurred are nothing but a natural 
development of the tendency that had already brought 
the inflection of the noun to this point. The later 
history of the inflection will clearly show that the 
main difl"erences between our declension to-day and 
that of the fourteenth century are all due to a more 
hurried pronunciation. Other differences are appar- 
ent and not real, inasmuch as they are differences in 
the representation of the sounds, and not in the sounds 
themselves. These will be considered in their regular 
order. The first concerns the termination -e. 

46. At the beginning of the INIiddle English period, 
nouns which had originally ended in a vowel almost 
invariably ended in -e ; and this -<?, we have seen, was 
frequently assumed by nouns which originally ended 
in a consonant, and were, therefore, not strictly entitled 
to it. But, between the fourteenth and sixteenth cen- 
turies, the final -e, whether etymologically belonging 



Final E of the Noun. 227 

to the word or not, disappeared from pronunciation. 
In the lawless and capricious spelling of the language 
that sprang up after the invention of printing, the 
retention of this letter in the orthography came to 
be a mere matter of accident. The words given in 
the Anglo-Saxon paradigms are sufficient to serve as 
examples. Of the modern representatives of these, 
st07ie and horse now terminate in an -e, to which they 
are not etymologically entitled : while end has given 
up the -e to which it is entitled. On the other hand, 
ca7'e, tongue^ and eye conform to their original in hav- 
ing a final vowel, and ship and woimd conform to 
theirs in not having one. Furthermore, oxa some- 
times appears in modern orthography as oxe, but more 
usually as ox. 

47. In the early part of the Middle English period 
the -es of the genitive singular and of the plural still 
appeared as a distinct syllable. Thus, for illustration, 
stones was at that time pronounced as a dissyllable, 
and not as now as a monosyllable. But even then 
this practice was showing signs of passing away. In 
the fifteenth century its abandonment went on rapidly. 
By the beginning of the Modern English period, the 
final -es had ceased to be pronounced as a separate 
syllable, save in those cases where the nature of the 
word still requires it to be sounded, as m foxes, horses. 
The dropping of the unpronounced e was a result 
that ultimately followed in those nouns which did not 
retain an -e in the nominative singular. Thus aim 
gave up a7'mes and became anns^ day gave up dayes 



228 English Language. 

and became days, and lord gave up lordes and became 
lords. This discarding of the e of -es had previously 
taken place "on a large scale in the case of polysyllabic 
words, those in particular that ended in a liquid. In 
Chaucer, for illustration, we have servaunts, pilgrims^ 
naciouns, where the -s is added directly to the stem. 
While the fuller form -es sometimes occurs in words 
of this class, it is far from being so common. 

48. Another peculiarity is now found in the declen- 
sion of the noun, though the consideration of it 
belongs rather to punctuation than to inflection. In 
the seventeenth century the practice of distinguishing 
the genitive singular from the plural came into vogue 
by placing an apostrophe before the final -s of the 
former ; but it was not till the eighteenth century that 
this became fully established. It was in time followed 
by adopting the still further distinction of placing an 
apostrophe after the -s of the genitive plural ; so that, 
for example, the genitive singular bofs, and the geni- 
tive plural boys\ though spelled and pronounced alike, 
are in reading easily recognized as different. 

49. The genitive case has likewise come to be so 
limited in usage as to express ordinarily the relation 
of possession, and, in consequence, most grammarians 
give it the title of " possessive." This is, however, an 
unfortunate name ; for, while this is the relation it 
expresses principally, it is by no means the one it 
expresses exclusively. Furthermore, as the dative and 
accusative have lost all distinction of form in both 
nouns and pronouns, the name of ^^ objective " is gen- 



Irregular Inflection of the Noun, 22() 

erally given by modern grammarians to the case ex- 
pressing the relations of direct and indirect object, 
formerly expressed by the two. The indirect relation 
is, to be sure, usually indicated by a preposition with 
the noun ; but it is not so invariably. In such a sen- 
tence as ' He gave the boy a book,' boy denotes the 
original dative of the indirect, and book the original 
accusative of the direct object. 

50. The plural form of nearly all nouns had come, 
in the fourteenth century, to be precisely the same as 
that of the genitive singular ; and the later history of 
the one differs in no respect whatever from the later 
history of the other. When the e was dropped in the 
genitive ending -es, it was also dropped in the endings 
of the plural : when it was retained in the former, it 
was retained in the latter. The account just given of 
the one, therefore, involves that of the other. 

51. This completes the history of what may be 
called the regular inflection of the noun. It now re- 
mains to consider the comparatively few words, which, 
in spite of the pressure always at work to produce uni- 
formity, have steadily resisted the tendency to go over 
to the declension which in the fourteenth century had 
become the standard one. These belong to four 
classes ; and in all of them it is the method alone of 
forming the plural that distinguishes their inflection 
from the rest. 

52. The first of these embraces the neuter mono- 
syllabic nouns already spoken of (44) as exhibiting 
no difference of form between the nominative and 



230 English Language, 

accusative singular and plural. While nearly all of 
these had gone over to the ordinary inflection in -s^ a 
few held out, and to this day have remained faithful, 
to the original inflection. The more marked exam- 
ples among these are deer and sheep^ which now never 
add anything to form the plural. This was not always 
so, however. In Early English, deer, for example, can 
be found in different wTiters either with no termina- 
tion in the plural, or with the ending -es, or with the 
ending -en. The two other words, swine and neat, 
ordinarily classed with the two preceding, are now 
rarely used save in a collective sense. But during the 
Old and J\Iiddle English periods there was great 
diversity of usage in the case of certain of these 
words, such as thing, and folk, and horse, and year, 
and to some extent this continues to prevail in our 
own day. Still the tendency was always toward the 
exclusive adoption of the regular inflection by these 
words. 

53. But beside the use of the singular form of cer- 
tain words in a collective sense, there are to be found 
in our language no small number of nouns which under 
special circumstances, or in special significations, un- 
dergo no change in forming the plural. They usually 
denote measure, size, weight, periods of time, or spe- 
cies. In most instances it is no easy matter to de- 
termine how this practice originated. In the case of 
pound and yoke it could be considered as representing 
the original inflection of the neuter noun of the vowel 
declension. But several of these words — such di^foot, 



Irregular Plurals of the Notm. 231 

fathoiUy mile^ sail, score, stone, and tun — come from 
Anglo-Saxon nouns of other declensions. Furthermore, 
this practice was early extended to words from Romance 
sources. In Chaucer, for illustration, vers, and cas 
mean ^ verses ' and ^ cases,' as well as ^ verse ' and ^ case.' 
We have, Hkewise, in Modern Enghsh a similar usage 
of Romance words, such as bicshel, brace, coii^ple, dozen, 
gross, and pair. With certain of these words, such as 
gross, in the sense of ' twelve dozen,' or sail, in the 
sense of ^vessel,' as ^ fifty sail,' the regular form in -s 
is unusual and perhaps unknown. Names of a few 
animals and of several species of fish have no change 
of form in the plural occasionally, and in some in- 
stances invariably. In general, however, it may be 
said that the modern language shows an increasing 
preference for the plural in -s. But there continue 
to be many words, such as pair and pairs, score and 
scores, couple and couples, in which the frequency of 
the form either with or without -s varies with indi- 
vidual usage, or with the peculiar sense intended to be 
conveyed. 

54. The second class includes a few nouns, which, 
in the English of the Anglo-Saxon period, invariably 
underwent vowel-modification (19) in the nominative 
and accusative plural, and have in some cases trans- 
mitted these modified forms to the Enghsh of our day. 
This was originally due, as has been explained, to the 
influence of a following vowel ; and, while the vowel 
once following has been dropped, the vowel-modifica- 
tion wrought by it remains. In the instances about 



232 



EnglisJi Laitgtiage. 



to be cited, it was an / that has disappeared, which 
brought about the variation of o to ?, of u to y, and of 
a to <f. There were about a score of these nouns in 
Anglo-Saxon, of which the following eight survive in 
Modern English. In the list as here given the nomi- 
native singular and plural are placed side by side : — 



Singular. 




Plural. 


Singular. 




Plural 


broc, 


breecheSy 


brec. 


CU, 


cow, 


cy. 


f5t. 


foot, 


fet. 


lus, 


louse, 


lys. 


gos, 


goose, 


gis. 


mus, 


mouse, 


mys. 


to'S, 


toothy 


t8«. 


man, 


man. 


men. 



That this modification of the vowel was not in itself a 
sign of the plural is at once made clear by the fact 
that, in Anglo-Saxon, the dative singular had invaria- 
bly in these words, and the genitive singular had oc- 
casionally, precisely the same form as the nominative 
plural. 

55. Of the nouns just mentioned the form repre- 
senting broc, with the vowel 0, does not seem to have 
been in use after the Conquest. Its place was taken, 
as early as the twelfth century, by brech, breech, from 
brec, and this in turn has been supplanted by the form 
with the plural ending -es. The original plural of ^^ 
was retained in the speech of the North, and is still 
found in the kye of the Scotch dialect. But another 
plural form, ki7ie, had shown itself as early, certainly, 
as the beginning of the fourteenth century, and later 
became established in the language of literature. Its 
origin will be indicated in the remarks upon the third 



Irregidar Phtrals of the Noun, 233 

class (57). The remaining six, foot^ goose, tooth, 
louse, 77iouse, and man, have remained unchanged, in 
respect to vowel-modification, during all the periods 
in the history of the language. Still, sporadic in- 
stances occur, in which the regular ending -s appears, 
with the vowel unmodified in the case of several of 
these words, giving, for example, such forms as foots, 
mouses, and inans, 

56. In the third class are embraced the few nouns 
which still exhibit the ending in -n, once common to 
half the substantives of the language. It has already 
been stated that, in the confusion that sprang up in 
the use of the vowel and consonant declensions, it was 
one of the inflections of the former that had triumphed 
over all the others. Of the nine words belonging to 
the original consonant declension that are used by 
Chaucer (43), three are likewise to be found with 
plurals in -s, clearly showing that the transition to the 
generally accepted form was going on. It continued 
to go on with unabated vigor after his death. By the 
beginning of the Modern English period, the only 
genuine historical plural in -ii that was used in prose 
and poetry was oxen. Even during the fourteenth 
century the form oxes is occasionally found.^ Eyen, 
moreover, continued to be employed^ but it was looked 
upon then, as now, merely as a' poetic form. Of the 
v-ast number of nouns originally belonging to the con- 
sonant declension, ox is, therefore, the solitary survival 

'^ E.g. "Droves of oxis and flockis of sheep." — Judith, ii. 8 
(Purvey's Recension). 



234 English Language. 

in JNIodern English, and even that, in the singular 
number, conforms to the vowel declension. It is to 
be added that hosen, which Chaucer used, dropped its 
-;^, but did not add an -s. 

57. At the same time, during this long conflict, the 
consonant declension did not fail to add some words 
to its numbers. In fact, in the Southern dialect, 
many nouns, as we have seen, belonging to the vowel 
declension, formed their plural in -?i. The literary lan- 
guage of the Midland, however, in the latter half of the 
fourteenth century, had almost entirely discarded this 
termination ; though, as might be expected, there is 
a slight difference of usage in the writings of different 
authors. Taking Chaucer as the representative of this 
period, the following statement can be made in regard 
to these forms. There are six words, as employed by 
him, which still continue to show in the plural a final 
-n derived from the plural of the consonant inflection. 
Not one of these six, however, belonged to the two 
leading Anglo-Saxon declensions. All of them exhib- 
ited irregularities in the earliest speech. Here will 
be given, side by side, the Anglo-Saxon form, the Old 
English intermediate form, and the Middle English 
form of the plural ; though there are numerous ortho- 
graphic variations of all of them, which will not be 
noticed here : — 

Anglo-Saxon. Old English. Middle English. 

brothre, -^ 

bro'oru, v bretheren. 

brethre, i 

dohtru, dohtere, doughtren. 



Irregular Plurals of the Noun. 235 



Anglo-Saxon. 


Old English. 


Middle English. 


sweostru, 


sustre, 


sustren. 


cildru, 


childre, 


children. 


fah, hostile y 


fon, 


fon. 


cy, or eye, 


kye, 


kyn. 



58. Of these words daughter^ sister, and foe exhibit 
in Chaucer's usage^, if the manuscripts can be trusted, 
plurals both in -ii and in -s. By the beginning of the 
Modern EngUsh period all, however, had assumed the 
latter termination. Each of the three other words has 
had a history of its own. The present strictly regular 
form brothers has been found in Layamon's ^^Brut" 
belonging to the Old English period, but it can scarcely 
be said to have come into use till the sixteenth century. 
Up to that time bretJurn was the form regularly em- 
ployed. In the century just mentioned brothers was 
revived, or again developed, and in the seventeenth 
century came to be preferred. The language still 
retains the two plurals, but ordinarily makes a slight 
distinction in their usage. 

59. Child has even a more peculiar history. Its 
Anglo-Saxon original, cild, had several ways of forming 
the plural, but cildru finally came to be the prevailing 
one. This assimilated the inflection of the word to 
that of a small class of Anglo-Saxon nouns, of which 
lamb, calf, and egg are the modern representatives. 
These originally added r-u to form the plural, and in 
later English developed not only the regular plural in 
-es^ but the plurals lambren, calveren, and eyren. In all 



236 Efiglish Langtcage. 

of these now disused forms the -71 of the consonant 
declension has been added to the weakened original 
inflection. Child went through essentially the same 
process, developing in the North of England the plural 
child7r, childe7% and in the South adding to this form the 
ending -7t, This early became, and has since remained, 
the standard form. The plurals which cu, ' cow,' de- 
veloped have been already given (55). It need only 
be added that it was apparently not until the seven- 
teenth century that the strictly regular form ^ cows ' 
came into use. It is not found in Shakspeare, or in 
our version of the Bible. Kine even now continues 
to be employed, but as a general rule it belongs rather 
to the language of poetry than of prose. 

60. There now remains the fourth class to be con- 
sidered, — that of the foreign nouns that have been 
imperfectly Anglicized, and still retain, in conse- 
quence, the plural they had in the tongue from which 
they were taken. Naturally the endings are very 
diverse. Most of these words have been introduced 
during the Modern English period ; many are terms 
connected with the natural or physical sciences. A 
large number of them are, therefore, technical in their 
character ; and of all of them it is true, that, at first, 
they are only employed by the educated. So long as 
their use was limited to this class, they underwent no 
change. The original plural, no matter what might be 
its ending, was rigidly retained. But no sooner did 
they cease to be purely technical than they were at 
once affected by the tendency of the language to 



In egular Plurals of the Noun. 237 

strive after uniformity. With many of them, in const 
qu,ence, the EngHsh plural in -s either superseded the 
foreign plural altogether, or became established along- 
side of it. It has been pointed out elsewhere how 
that, in obedience to this rule, omens has driven out 
the original plural oinina^ once in use, and dogmas has 
almost entirely taken the place of dogmata ; while, on 
the other hand, forjnulae and formulas may be said 
to be equally common, though, in technical works, the 
former is perhaps preferred.^ 

61. Here it is that the counteracting influence of 
the literary language makes itself felt. Were it not for 
this, it is fairly certain that the large majority of the 
foreign words that come to be generally employed 
would be fully Anghcized, and adopt the regular plural 
in -s. But in many cases the agency of the literary 
language makes the foreign plural perfectly familiar to 
all, and it becomes in time too well estabhshed to be 
discarded. In some kinds of words the difficulty of 
pronouncing what would be the Anglicized form tends 
to perpetuate the original one. This is familiarly seen 
in Latin nouns in -is whose plural ends in -es^ such as 
ellipsis, ellipses ; hypothesis, hypotheses ; oasis, oases, 
and others ; or, in Latin nouns in -es, in which the 
plural is the same as the singular, like series and 
species. But there are other cases in which the for- 
eign form maintains itself without such aid. The 
plural genera, from genus, for example, is so firmly 
established that geniuses, from present appearances, 
can have no hope of ever being adopted. 

1 See page 147, 



238 English Language. 

62. It is natural, however^ that, in many of these 
nouns, double forms should be produced, and indeed 
continue to increase as the words pass more and more 
from technical into common usage. The uneducated, 
or rather those not specially educated, cannot be 
expected to know the foreign plurals ; and the substi- 
tution of the Enghsh plural sign -s gets rid, by an easy 
process, of all doubts and difficulties. Consequently 
we have apparatus and apparattcses^ radii and radi- 
uses^ memoranda and memorandums, pheno7nena and 
phenomenons, vortices and vortexes, virtuosi and vir- 
tuosos, and numerous other double forms. In some 
cases there is a difference of meaning between these two 
plurals, as, for instance, between geitii and geniuses, 
indices and indexes. In this respect the word stamen 
reverses the usual order of things ; for while, in science, 
the Anghcized plural stamens is the form employed, 
it is the foreign plural stami^ia that is heard in the 
language of common life. 

63. It is clear that the use of foreign plurals is cer- 
tain, in some cases, to result in confusion. The great 
majority of men who speak English cannot be ex- 
pected to be familiar with any speech but their own ; 
and when endings are introduced of whose force they 
are ignorant, it is impossible that they should in every 
instance use them with exact propriety. Such termi- 
nations are in the nature of exceptions to a general 
rule, and the exceptions are but few which men will 
take the trouble to learn. It is too much to ask of 
those whose acquaintance with language is limited 



Foreign Plurals of the Noun, 239 

only to their own, or even to the modern tongues, to 
be aware that stai7iina and effluvia and errata are 
plurals of the Latin nouns stamen, effluvium, and 
erratum. The fact, if known to them at all, must 
be learned in each particular instance. Under such 
circumstances, mistakes in usage are almost sure to 
arise. In the case of the words just mentioned, 
effluvia and errata have frequently been treated as 
singulars and have developed the plurals effluvias and 
er7^atas. These forms were not uncommon as far 
back as the seventeenth century, and have at times 
been used by writers of some repute. So at the pres- 
ent day the plural stamina is sometimes treated as a 
singular. 

64. No better exemplification of the results of this 
confusion can be found than in the history of the two 
words che7'ub and se^^aph. Their respective plurals in 
the Hebrew, from which they were borrowed, were 
cherubim and seraphiin ; and these forms naturally 
were the ones first used for that number, though with 
the ending -in instead oi -im. At this point confu- 
sion came in. Cherubim and seraphim were not felt 
to be plurals. The result was, that they were treated 
as singulars ; and, being looked upon as singulars, 
they themselves, though really plurals, received the 
English plural sign -s in addition. Consequently the 
plurals with this termination came into wide use ; and 
this corruption was thoroughly estabhshed in the lan- 
guage before the Middle English period. How firmly 
fixed it had become is evident from the fact that 



240 English Larigttage. 

these are the only forms employed by the translators 
of the English Bible, though they were, of course, 
acquainted with the Hebrew. But in the sixteenth 
century the language also developed the regular Eng- 
lish forms chencbs and se^^aphs, which are the plurals 
now generally found. Still the fact remains that there 
have been and are in authorized usage two singular 
and three plural forms of these words, as may be 
illustrated by cherub and cherubim for the one, and 
cherubs^ cherubim, and cherubims for the other. 

65. Of these four classes of nouns, the plurals of 
which vary from the regular plural, this only remains 
to be said : whenever the genitive is employed, they 
assume an -s, after the manner of the ordinary inflec- 
tion. This, in a few instances, renders the genitive 
plural different from the nominative plural. In the 
case of the nouns which undergo vowel- modification, 
that variation causes necessarily the genitive plural to 
differ in form from the genitive singular, as inan's, 
men's. These complete all the exceptions to the 
regular inflection that Modern English presents out- 
side of purely euphonic ones, such as the dropping of 
the sound of s, and sometimes of its sign, in the geni- 
tive of words which themselves terminate in the sound 
of i", as may be illustrated by such phrases as "for 
conscience' sake," and the like. 



CHAPTER III. 
THE ADJECTIVE. 

66. The English noun, in the course of its history, 
has been largely stripped of its inflections ; but its 
losses bear little proportion to those of the adjective. 
To a certain extent, the same influences operated upon 
both. Together they underwent the changes that were 
brought about by the weakening of the vowels a^ o, 
and ti to e. Together they suffered from the dropping 
of the final -n. The results, accordingly, which fol- 
lowed in the one case took place Hkewise in the other, 
and do not need to be repeated. But the losses of 
the adjective at even an early period were far more 
extensive than those of the noun, as the confusion of 
the declensions v/as also much greater. With this part 
of speech, inflection has now entirely disappeared. 
One unchanged form has taken the place of the mani- 
fold ones originally used to express, not merely the 
distinction of gender, number, and case, but also of 
declension. 

67. During the Anglo-Saxon period the adjective 
was distinguished by the possession of the following 
characteristics : — 

241 



242 English Language. 

1. Two declensions. 

2. Forms differing, to a great extent, for the three 
genders, — the masculine, the feminine, and the 
neuter. 

3. Two numbers, the singular and the plural, with 
marked differences of forms for each. 

4. Four cases, — the nominative, genitive, dative, 
and accusative. To these most grammarians add a 
fifth, the instrumental, ending in -e, which, in the 
paradigms found below, is put down as a secondary 
form of the dative, corresponding to the dative of 
the masculine and neuter nouns of the vowel declen- 
sion of the noun. Those who regard these forms as 
belonging to the instrumental once made the final 
-e long (-?), as in the similar case of the noun (24). 

68. Rich as the adjective evidently was in inflection 
during the Anglo-Saxon period, it is manifest that even 
then it had suffered losses. The vowels 0, i, and u 
may all have been added to the stem of the adjective 
as to that of the noun (9) in the primitive Teutonic ; 
but even in the Gothic, the earliest of the Teutonic 
languages, the stems in i had practically disappeared. 
Stems in ti were still to be found in that tongue ; 
but in the Anglo-Saxon they had given way almost 
entirely to stems in ^, which had practically become 
universal. 

69. The Teutonic adjective differs from the adjec- 
tive of other groups of languages belonging to the 
Indo-European family in two respects. The first is, 
that nearly every adjective is declined in two different 



Declensions of the Adjective. 243 

ways. The second iS;, that one of these declensions 
is distinct from that of the noun, and has largely, in- 
stead, the inflections of the pronoun. For this reason 
one name given to this latter declension is the ^^pro- 
nominal." For a similar cause, therefore, the other 
declension is also called sometimes the ^^ nominal" 
or noun declension, because, with the exception of the 
genitive plural, its forms correspond with those found 
in the corresponding masculine, feminine, and neuter 
nouns of the /^-declension of the noun. The most 
common terms, however, appUed to the two inflections 
are " strong " and '^ weak." 

70. There are, in addition, other names, derived 
from the use of the adjective, which will be the 
ones employed here. The adjective was usually de- 
clined according to the nominal or weak declension, 
when the substantive which it qualified was made 
definite, by connecting with the qualifying adjective 
the definite article, or a demonstrative or possessive 
pronoun ; but, when the adjective was simply used 
alone, the substantive was, as a consequence, indefi- 
nite ; and the adjective was inflected, in such cases, 
according to the pronominal or strong declension. 
Hence have arisen the terms "definite " and " indefi- 
nite " as applied to the inflection of the adjective. 
This double declension — a peculiar, and it must be 
said useless, characteristic of the primitive Teutonic — 
has wholly disappeared in English, but still survives 
in modern High German. 

71. The following paradigms of the adjective blind, 



244 



English Language. 



' blind/ inflected both ways, will show the forms of 
the language as they are generally found in the writings 
of the tenth and eleventh centuries. But during the 
Anglo-Saxon period itself there was a good deal of 
sloughing off of the terminations of the adjective in 
the indefinite declension, thereby reducing them to 
the same form. Thus the nominative singular and 
plural feminine had frequently a distinct ending in 
-u and -a, respectively. The neuter of the nomina- 
tive and accusative plural also sometimes ended in -u. 
In general, it may be said, that survivals of an earlier 
usage are apt to make their appearance in later Anglo- 
Saxon. 

72. Indefinite (Pronominal or Strong) Declension. 







SINGULAR. 




PLURAL. 




Masculine. 


Feminine. 


Neuter. 




All Genders 


'Nom 


. blind, 


blind, 


blind. 




blinde, 


Gejt. 


blindes. 


blindre, 


blindes. 




blindra. 


Bat. 


r blindum, ^ 
1 blinde, / 


blindre, 


r blindum 
1 blinde, 


} 


blindum, 


Ace. 


blindne, 


blinde, 


blind. 




blinde. 


73- 


Definite (Nominal or 


Weak) Declension. 






SINGULAR. 




PLURAL. 




Masculine. 


Feminine. 


Neuter. 




All Genders. 


Nom 


blinda, 


blinde, 


blinde. 




blindan, 


Gen. 


blindan, 


blindan. 


blindan. 




blindra, 


Dat. 


blindan, 


blindan. 


blindan. 




blindum, 


Ace. 


blindan, 


blindan, 


blinde. 




blindan. 



Loss of the Adjective Inflection. 245 

For the usual termination -ra of the genitive plural, 
-ena sometimes occurs. This, when employed, makes 
the definite declension conform entirely to that of the 
noun. 

74. As an illustration of the use of these declensions, 
^ a blind man ^ would be, in Anglo-Saxon, hlifid man ; 
^ of a blind man ' would be blindes mannes ; whereas, 
making the substantive definite by connecting it with 
the demonstrative pronoun, ^that (or 'the') blind 
man' would be se blinda man ; and 'of that (or 'the') 
blind man ' would be pees blindan mannes, 

75. A glance at these paradigms is sufficient to 
show how rich in inflection the English adjective was 
in the Anglo-Saxon of the tenth and eleventh cen- 
turies, even if then it had lost some of the endings 
which two centuries before had belonged to it. Down 
to the twelfth century this fulness of inflection was on 
the whole retained. The same confusion, however, 
that overtook the noun during the centuries following 
the Conquest befell the adjective also. Variation of 
inflection was one of the first things to go. By the end 
of the second century after the Conquest the distinc- 
tion between the definite and the indefinite adjective 
had not only broken down to a great extent every- 
where, it had in some places disappeared entirely. 
The confusion in this part of speech that sprang up 
in consequence did not, however, result in giving 
exclusive ascendency to any one particular inflection, 
as in the case of the noun : it had rather the effect of 
causing the terminations to be abandoned altogether. 



246 English Language, 

76. Traces of the two original declensions con^ 
tinned to exist, it is true, till late in the fourteenth 
century, and possibly till ^ the middle of the next. 
Monosyllabic adjectives ending in a consonant as- 
sumed then, as before, a final -e in the singular when 
preceded by the definite article or a demonstrative or 
possessive pronoun. Thus, ^ the blind man ' would be 
generally written and pronounced the blinde man. 
This was occasionally true also of adjectives of more 
than one syllable. But after that period all trace of 
distinctions of this sort speedily disappeared, and dis- 
appeared completely. xA. rehc of the definite declen- 
sion may perhaps still be seen in the form olden 
(A. S., ealdan) in phrases such as ' the olden time ' ; 
but if oldeii in such an expression actually took its 
origin from that source, it is, to modern feeling, simply 
a collateral form of the adjective old, and not an 
oblique case of it, as etymologically it is. 

77. The only further important survival of the 
original inflection at the beginning of the Middle 
English period was the distinction that still continued 
to prevail between the singular and the plural. Mono- 
syllabic adjectives ending in a consonant assumed -e 
as the termination of the latter number. Thus, for 
illustration, blind would be used for all cases of the 
singular, when not compelled to conform to the defi- 
nite declension. Similarly blinde would be the common 
form for all cases of the plural. Necessarily this dis- 
tinction could not apply to adjectives which ended in 
-if, such as newe, swete, blithe ; it had even then 



Comparison of the Adjective. 247 

ceased to apply to adjectives of more than one sylla- 
ble. It was, moreover, further weakened by the fact 
that many adjectives which originally terminated in a 
consonant had, Hke the noun, assumed a final -e to 
which they were not entitled ; and, in consequence, 
the ending of the singular was with them the same as 
that of the plural. By the close of the Middle Enghsh 
period the distinction between the two numbers was 
utterly swept away, and the unchanged radical form 
of the adjective was, as now, the only one employed. 

78. The history of the participle does not differ 
from that of the adjective. It also was generally 
inflected both ways in Anglo-Saxon, and shared 
throughout in all the losses suffered by the latter. 

Comparison. 

79. Comparison, being really a matter of derivation, 
and not of inflection, does not strictly find a place in 
a history of the latter. It is convenient, hov/ever, to 
follow the usual method, and so treat it. 

In all of the Indo-European tongues certain suffixes 
were added to the radical of the adjective to form 
the comparative : to form the superlative, a secondary 
suffix was added, usually to the suffix of the com- 
parative. These suffixes underwent much change 
of form' in the various languages ; but their general 
resemblance and common descent are apparent in 
all. 

The suffixes almost universally employed in the 
Teutonic to form the comparative were is and os : to 



248 English Language. 

these another suffix, ta, was added to form the super- 
lative. But in every one of the Teutonic tongues^ 
save the Gothic, the s of the comparative had suffered 
rhotacism (14), as it did usually in Latin (cf. alt-us^ 
alt-ior, alt-ius). The forms employed were, in con- 
sequence, ir and dr. In the superlative, however, the 
change of j" to r did not take place ; and the original 
forms of the suffixes were therefore ista and osta. 

80. In Anglo-Saxon, moreover, the / or o of the 
suffix was dropped in the comparative. In some 
words, however, vov/el- modification produced by the 
i (20) continued to remain, and, in a few instances, 
transmitted the modified form to a later period. Thus 
lang, ' long,' Strang, ' strong,' under the influence of 
the vowel which had come to be dropped, became 
lengra {iox lengira) dccA strengra (for strengira). In 
a similar manner, geong, ^ young,' became, in the com- 
parative, gingra, and eald, ' old,' became likewise 
ieldra. The vowels / and of the suffixes being 
dropped, the simple letter r was consequently all that 
was added to form the comparative ; and, as adjec- 
tives in this degree v\^ere invariably inflected accord- 
ing to the definite declension, the termination of the 
nominative was therefore always -ra and -re. In the 
superlative, the final -a of the two original suffixes, 
ista and osta, was dropped, and the / of the ending 
ist was usually weakened into e. Still, whenever in- 
flected according to the definite declension, which 
was usually the case, it necessarily reassumed the final 
-a, wherever that termination properly belonged. 



Comparison of the Adjective, 249 

81. The comparison of the adjective in the Anglo- 
Saxon period may, in consequence, be fully seen in 
the following examples : — 



blind, 


blind. 


bhnd-r-a, 


blind-ost. 


brad, 


broad, 


brad-r-a, 


brad-ost. 


heard, 


hardy 


heard-r-a. 


heard-ost. 


Strang, 


strong, 


streng-r-a, 


streng-est. 


eald, 


old. 


ield-r-a. 


ield-est. 


geong, 


young. 


gieng-r-a. 


gieng-est. 



82. In the Early English period the comparative 
suffix was no longer added directly to the stem as in 
Anglo-Saxon, but an e ox 2.vl o was inserted between. 
This may have been due to a transferrence to the com- 
parative of the e and of the superlative endings. 
Confusion, at any rate, soon sprang up in the use of 
these two vowels. The same adjective would appear 
in the comparative and superlative degree, sometimes 
with the suffixes -ore, -ost, sometimes with -ere, -est. 
A representative comparison of the adjective during 
this transition period would be the following : — 

rblind-ere, blind-est(e). 

blind, < 

C blind-ore, blind-ost(e). 

The forms with the connective e became steadily 
predominant, and by the fourteenth century were 
almost invariably employed. The final -e, both of the 
comparative and of the superlative, was also at that 
time frequently dropped in spelling, as it had been 



250 E7tglish Language. 

in pronunciation. By the beginning of the Modern 
Enghsh period it had disappeared altogether, leaving 
the comparison precisely in the situation in which it 
is at present. 

83. The modification of the vowel seen in st?^ang, 
^strong/ strengra, ^stronger'; lang, Mong,' lengra^ 
Monger' ; geong, ' ^owng^' gingra^ ^younger,' and other 
words lasted down to the fourteenth century, and 
later. We find then, in consequence, such com- 
parisons as 



long, 


lenger(e), 


lengest(e). 


strong, 


strenger(e), 


strengest(e). 


yong, 


yenger(e), 


yengest(e). 



This is the common method, at the beginning of the 
Middle English period, of comparing long and strong; 
but in the case of yong, 'young,' the vowel of the 
positive had a good while before been adopted into 
the comparative and superlative. In the fifteenth 
century this same procedure took place in the com- 
parison of the other two. The forms with vowel-modi- 
fication disappeared from the language entirely, with 
the single exception of old, which still clings to elder 
and eldest, the representatives of the original com- 
parison, although it has developed, and commonly 
uses, the more strictly regular forms, older and oldest 
84. In the Ancren Riwle, or 'Rule of Anchorites,' 
a work written about 1220, one of the first, if not the 
first, recorded instance of comparison by means of 
adverbs is found in the phrase the meste dredfiil. This 



Double Comparison, 251 

comparison by means of the adverbs moi'e and most 
is rare in the thirteenth century ; but in the fourteenth 
it made rapid progress. Since that time it has steadily 
increased in use, flourishing side by side with the 
suffixes in -er and -est. In the case of polysyllabic 
adjectives this method of comparison is now much 
the more common one, few late English writers em- 
ploying forms like Bacon's honor ablest, Shakspeare's 
sovereignest, or Milton's virtiwusest, exquisitest, excel- 
lentest. But the tendency to give up the employment 
of such formations is not due to their being improper, 
but to their being difficult to pronounce. 

85. The existence of two methods of comparison 
enabled English to gratify that disposition to make 
use of double comparison to which all the Teutonic 
tongues have manifested an inclination. This was 
introduced in the fourteenth century, and for the next 
three centuries was largely employed. In the latter 
part of the sixteenth century, and the beginning of 
the seventeenth, when it was by many regarded as an 
elegancy of style, it was perhaps the most prevalent. 
Expressions like ^ the most icnkindest cut of all ' 
(^^ Julius Caesar," act iii. scene 2), ^the most straitest 
sect of our religion' (Acts xxvi. 5), ^my 7nost dearest 
nephew' (Sir Thomas More's "Edward V."), are to 
be found scattered through the pages of numerous 
writers of the Elizabethan age, and earlier. By Ben 
Jonson this is spoken of as " a certain kind of English 
Atticism, or eloquent phrase of speech, imitating the 
manner of the most ancientest and finest Grecians, 



252 Eriglish Langttage. 

who, for more emphasis and vehemency's sake, used 
so to speak." This usage died out in the seventeenth 
century, but has been occasionally employed by Eng- 
lish poets of the present time.^ 

86. Furthermore, the assertion, so frequently made, 
that adjectives expressing the highest possible degree 
of a quality, Hke chief, supj^eme^ perfect, are not 
subject to comparison, whether logically correct or 
not, is not merely utterly at variance with the usage 
of the best writers of all periods of English, but with 
that of the best writers of both ancient and modern 
cultivated tongues. For instance, 77iore perfect and 
7nost perfHt have been employed by the greatest 
authors of our language with as much freedom as per- 
fectior and perfectissimus were by Cicero. A similar 
statement can be made as to the use of the superlatives 
when two persons or things only are compared. The 
impropriety of this usage is strongly insisted upon by 
many grammarians ; yet it is one which will be met 
with constantly in the best writers of our speech. 

87. Like all the Teutonic tongues, English possessed 
certain adjectives, the comparison of which is irregu- 
lar. The irregularity consists in the fact that the 
comparative and superlative are derived from a stem 
different from that of the positive. In Anglo-Saxon 
the following were the forms in common use : — 

1 E.g.. 

Rise up, shine, stretch thine hand out, with thy bow 
Touch the most dimviest heights of trembhng heaven. 

Swinburne, Atalanta in Calydon, line 20. 



Irregular Comparison of the Adjective. 253 



yfel, evil, wiersa, < 

I wie 



god good, betera, betest. 

■ wierrest, 
- wierst. 

micel, much, mara, msest. 

1-1 7- , 1- f l^sest, 

lytel, little., laessa, \ _ 

\ laest. 

These forms have continued with little change down 
to our time, though /// and bad have come into use 
as additional positives of worse. In this last word 
and in less, as will be observed, the change of i" to r 
in the comparative (79) did not take place. 

88. There has at times been prevalent a disposition 
to compare some of these words regularly, but it has 
never been sufficiently powerful to cause any general 
adoption of such new forms. Gooder and goodesf, 
badder and baddest, are, however, to be met with 
occasionally in our literature, though they cannot be 
called common ; and littler and littlest are forms fre- 
quently found in the English dialects, and sometimes 
make their appearance in the literary speech. Further- 
more, the double comparative lesser has thoroughly 
established itself in good usage, though it does not 
seem to have come into the language till the sixteenth 
century. Worser, another double comparative, very 
common in the Elizabethan period, is now but rarely 
employed : still, the frequency of its occurrence in 
certain great writers, especially Shakspeare, will prob- 
ably prevent its ever dying out completely. 

89. A few adjectives still preserved, at the begin- 



254 English Language. 

ning of the Middle English period^ the practice of 
adding the suffixes of comparison without any con- 
nective, as in Anglo-Saxon. Thus we have the form 
derre, ' dearer.' The comparative and superlative of 
the adjective now spelled high was then frequently 
herre and hext. There are, moreover, other cases in 
which a positive was originally lacking. Such are 
nerre, 'nearer/ and next^ 'nearest.' These were 
formed in Anglo-Saxon from the adverb nlah, as was 
further (A. ^. fw^ra)^ from the adverb /^;r, 'be- 
fore.' In this case -ther, another suffix of comparison 
unusual in Anglo-Saxon, was added to the stem. 
Later, these forms further and furthest seem to have 
supplanted the ferre and ferrest derived from the 
adverb /^^r, 'far,' and were assumed to belong to that 
word as their positive. As a natural result came still 
later the additional ioxm farther dJid farthest, in which 
the vowel of the assumed positive has made its way 
into the comparative and superlative. No distinction 
in good usage exists as yet between the forms farther 
2X1^ further, though one may be developed in time. 

90. There is still another suffix of comparison in 
Anglo-Saxon which has left some trace of itself in 
Modern English. This is the superlative suffix -ma, 
which is found frequently in Latin in the form -mo, 
as, for example, mini-mo. In Anglo-Saxon it is seen 
in for-77ia, ' foremost,' ' first,' and hinde-ma, ' hind- 
most.' But even then the superlative force of the 
suffix -ma began to be felt as weak, and the regular 
suffix -est was added, thereby forming the double 



Irregular Comparison of the Adjective. 255 

superlative suffix -inest, seen in fyrmest. This double 
superlative suffix was found in a number of words in 
Anglo-Saxon, which came usually from adverbs and 
prepositions, such, for example, as inne?nest, * in- 
most ' ; midmest, ' midmost ' ; and nordmest, ' north- 
most.' It still occurs in several words in Modern 
Enghsh, but it has now assumed universally the form 
-7nost, the having been substituted for ^ as a conse- 
quence of -7nest being confounded with the adverb 
most, used similarly to express the superlative. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE PRONOUN. 

91. The pronoun is strictly divided into four classes, 
— ^the personal, the demonstrative, the interrogative, 
and the relative. To these is added usually a fifth 
class, called the indefinite, which comprehends a num- 
ber of words that occupy a position half way between 
the noun and adjective, and sometimes partake of the 
nature of both. Names of other classes are also met 
with frequently. The most common of these are the 
so-called possessive pronouns, which are in reality 
nothing but adjectives ; the reflexive pronouns, which 
consist simply of the personal pronouns strengthened 
by the word self ; and the reciprocal pronouns, which 
are formed by the combination of two of the in- 
definite pronouns. It is only the first five classes, 
however, that can be said to have an independent 
existence. 

92. As the indefinite pronouns were inflected either 
like the noun or the adjective, their later history is 
involved in that of those two parts of speech, and 
does not demand attention here. It is different with 

256 , 



The Demonstrative Pronouns. 257 

the words belonging to the four other classes. These 
have a history of a somewhat exceptional character. 
Ordinarily the discussion of the pronoun begins with 
the personal ; but as, in the later development of the 
English language, some of the forms of the demonstra- 
tive have gone over to the personal, it is expedient in 
this case to begin with the former. 

The Demonstrative Pronouns. 

93. The only two genuine demonstratives in Mod- 
ern English are that and this with their respective 
plurals. But in the earhest period of the language 
they had a fulness of inflection of which there has 
been but little survival in the present tongue. Each 
of them will require separate consideration. 

94. The following is the inflection in Anglo-Saxon 
of the demonstrative represented in Modern English 
by that: — 







SINGULAR. 




PLURAL. 




Masc. 


Fern. 


Neut. 


All Genders. 


Nom. 


se, 


seo, 


>8et, 


>i, 


Gen. 


Jj^s, 


b^re, 


)?3es, 


)>ara, 


Dat. 


>3em, 


}?^re, 


>3em, 


>^m, 


Ace. 


jjone, 


J>i, 


>«t, 


i>i. 


Inst 






>y. 





Besides the forms just given, there are numerous 

varying ones which it is not necessary to specify here. 

95. From the beginning the form pe had been 

found in the dialect of the North alongside of s'e. It 



258 English Language. 

also appeared in late West-Saxon ; and early in Old 
English the form for the nominative became pe^ peo, 
l^cet. The inflection at that time, however, began to 
fall into confusion. There came to be, as was gener- 
ally the case with all parts of speech, the widest dif- 
ference of usage between various portions of the 
country. It resulted in the gradual confounding and 
consequent abandonment of the inflectional forms of 
the pronoun se. This went on increasing, so that at 
the beginning of the Middle English period nothing 
was left of the singular number but that, originally the 
neuter nominative and accusative. The plural was 
represented by tho, the Anglo-Saxon l^a. All the 
other forms had either disappeared or had been put 
to other uses. Nor was tho itself the only plural. 
The form thos, or those, probably from the plural pas 
of the demonstrative pronoun pes (99), had taken a 
place alongside of it in the same sense. At first it 
was used interchangeably with it, but finally supplanted 
it entirely as the regular plural of that. On the other 
hand, the Early English representatives of the original 
plural of this pronoun did not die out. Modified as 
to their spelling by the corresponding forms of the 
similar pronoun of the Old Norse, they went over to 
the pronoun of the third person, and were finally 
adopted as its plural (108). 

9I5. The instrumental py, which in the North had 
also the form pl, continued, however, to remain in use 
with the comparative of the adjective. With this it 
is still constantly employed in Modern EngHsh, as it 



I 



The Demonstrative Pronouns, 259 

in fact has been during every period in the history 
of the tongue. In such phrases as ^^ the more, the 
better," the is often falsely explained as an article ; 
whereas it, in fact, is nothing more than a relic of the 
lost instrumental case of the demonstrative pronoun. 

97. It is evident that the definite article owes its 
origin to the demonstrative just inflected. As such, in 
fact, this pronoun was generally employed during the 
Anglo-Saxon period, though many cases occur when 
it is hard to decide whether the word is really used as 
the article or as the demonstrative. In the twelfth 
century the form si had generally given way to the 
collateral form pe, which, as time went on, came more 
and more to take the place of all the other inflectional 
forms. This had become the estabHshed rule in the 
fourteenth century, in which the, strictly a nominative 
singular masculine, was employed with all nouns with- 
out respect to their gender, number, or case. Before 
that time, forms derived from other cases of the de- 
monstrative are occasionally to be found, especially in 
the Southern dialect. This is particularly true of pen 
or then, from the accusative pone, an example of which 
can be seen in the following line : — 

Then wey he nom to Londone, he and alle his.^ 

98. But besides the forms which have died out of 
the language entirely, that was employed to some ex- 
tent also as a definite article. Though itself strictly a 

1 He took the way to London, he and all Mys,.^- Robert of Glou- 
cester ^ vol. i., page 364. 



26o English Language. 

neuter nominative or accusative, it was applied to any 
noun in the singular number, no matter what its gen- 
der or case. This state of things did not continue. 
The employment of that as a demonstrative, as a rel- 
ative, and also as a conjunction, had insensibly the 
tendency to cause the to be regarded as exclusively 
the article, not only for the sake of greater definite- 
ness, but to relieve the other word from being too 
much over-worked. So, during the Middle English 
period, that gave way entirely to the. Certain expres- 
sions in which it had once been used as an article con- 
tinued, however, to survive long after any such general 
employment of it had been abandoned. This is true 
especially of the phrases thatoon, and that other, mean- 
ing ^the one,' and ^the other.' In these the a of that 
having been weakened to e, the final / of the resulting 
thet was often transferred to the following word, giving 
us the tone, and the tother, sometimes that tother, — 
expressions which are not uncommon in Elizabethan 
English, and, indeed, are occasionally met with now. 
In fact, the word tother has often been used alone. 
When now so used, it is generally written with an 
apostrophe, f other, as if the / were' a contraction 
of the, instead of being in its origin the final letter of 
thet. 

99. The following is the paradigm of the Anglo- 
Saxon demonstrative pronoun whose representative in 
Modern English is this : — 



Tlie Demonstrative Pronouns. 261 







SINGULAR. 




PLURAL. 




Masc. 


Fem. 


Neut. 


All Genders. 


Norn, 


>Es, 


>eos, 


>is, 


>is, 


Gen. 


>ises, 


Hsse, 


>ises, 


>issa, 


Bat. 


Hsum, 


J?isse, 


Hsum, 


>isum, 


Ace. 


Msne, 


has, 


}>is, 


l?as. 


Inst. 






>ys. 





As in the case of se, there are numerous variant forms 
not recorded here. 

100. Even less of this pronoun has survived than of 
the pronoun s'e. It is the neuter nominative and ac- 
cusative that has alone remained of the singular ; and 
the dropj)ing of the other forms not only took place 
early, but had been completed by the close of the 
thirteenth century, though sporadic examples of some 
of them occur later. In the fourteenth century, only 
the form this is found in the singular. The original 
plural pas had become confounded with the plural of 
se, and gradually ceased to be regarded as belonging 
to this demonstrative (95). Its place as plural was taken 
by the surviving singular form this, to which -e, the 
plural ending of the adjective, was sometimes added, 
giving the form thise. A collateral form was these, which 
gradually supplanted the two others, and became, in 
the Middle English period, the regular plural, which it 
has ever since remained. The form this, however, 
continued to survive, and, as a genuine plural, is far 
from uncommon in the sixteenth century. Especially 
is this true of certain expressions such as " this twenty 



262 English Language, 

weeks/' '' this hundred pounds/' which are still more 
or less in use, and are now ordinarily explained on 
syntactical grounds, which do not require this to be 
regarded as a plural. Such it certainly was not in the 
original form of the phrases."^ 

loi. Besides this, there were in Anglo-Saxon cer- 
tain other words which are frequently reckoned as 
demonstrative pronouns. They are compounds of lie, 
' like.' One of them is ilc, ' same/ which lasted down 
to the fifteenth century in the literary language as ilk, 
and then passed out of common use ; but it was pre- 
served in the speech of the North, and .is made some- 
what familiar to us by its frequent occurrence in the 
poetry written in the Scotch dialect. Another of these 
demonstratives was Pylc, ' that same,' ' that,' which in 
Early English usually appeared as thilke, but died out 
before the beginning of Modern English. Another 
compound was swilc, which, after passing through many 
intermediate forms of spelhng, varying with pronuncia- 
tion, — among which are swilche, swulche, sulche, 
swiche, siche, and soche, — finally had one of them, 
stcch, adopted into the language of literature as the 
established form. The vulgar speech still preserves 
the spelhng and pronunciation sich, corresponding 
strictly to the correlative which (136). 

102. Of these four, ilc followed the definite declen- 
sion of the adjective in Anglo-Saxon ; the other two, 
the indefinite ; and they all naturally shared in the 

1 Compare, e.g., pis feowertig daga i^Blicklmg Ho7?iilies, page 35) ^ 
in which daga is the genitive plural. 



I 



The Personal Pronoiins. 263 

fate that overtook those inflections. Besides these, 
there was originally in the language a third genuine 
demonstrative, geoii, corresponding to the German 
je7ier. But even in the Anglo-Saxon period it was be- 
coming obsolete, only one instance of its use having 
been so far recorded. In the form yon, however, it 
was preserved in the Northern dialect, and has ex- 
tended from that to the language of literature ; but 
it is rarely used outside of poetry. 

The Personal Pronouns. 

103. The following are the forms of the pronouns 
of the first, second, and third persons, as found in 
Anglo-Saxon. The third person is the only one that 
distinguishes gender, and that in the singular alone. 







FIRST 


PERSON. 






Singular. 




Dual. 


Plural. 


Nom. 


ic, 




wit, 


we, 


Gen, 


min, 




uncer, 


user, lire, 


DaU 


me, 




unc, 


us, 


Ace. 


mec, 
me. 




uncit, 
unc. 


iisic, 
us. 






SECOND PERSON. 






Singular. 




Dual. 


Plural. 


Nom. 


I'U, 




git, 


ge, 


Gen. 


l>in, 




incer, 


eower, 


DaU 


>i, 




inc, 


eow, 


Ace, 


r>ec, 




incit, 
inc. 


eowic, 
eow. 



264 English Language, 







THIRD PERSON. 








SINGULAR. 




PLURAL. 




Masculine. 


Feminine. 


Neuter. 


All Genders. 


Nom. 


hi, 


heo, 


hit, 


hi, 


Gen. 


his, 


hire. 


his. 


hira. 


Dat. 


him, 


hire, 


him, 


him, 


Ace, 


hine. 


IhEo.J 


hit. 


hi. 



Here, as in the case of the other pronouns, numer- 
ous variant forms are not recorded. 

104. Comparing these forms with those found in 
Modern Enghsh, it is evident at once that the personal 
pronouns have retained more of the original inflec- 
tion than either the noun or the adjective. It is they 
and the interrogative who that alone continue to make 
a distinction in form betv/een the nominative and 
objective cases. IMoreover, whatever losses they suf- 
fered, they suffered them before the Middle English 
period ; and certain general statements can be made 
in regard to their fojms as seen in Anglo-Saxon, con- 
trasted with those exhibited by them even in Middle 
Enghsh. 

105. The most noticeable thing is the fact that, in 
this, the earUest form of the language, the pronouns 
of the first and second persons still continued to re- 
tain the dual number. It had died out of the noun, 
the adjective, and the verb; but in Anglo-Saxon, as 
in the other early Teutonic tongues, it still survived in 
these two pronouns. But in it, as likewise in the others, 



The Personal Pronouns, 265 

it showed signs of giving way. Even in the ninth and 
tenth centuries it was not unusual to strengthen the 
dual forms by one of the words meaning * both * or 
^ two.' The nominative dual wit^ meaning ' we two/ 
received not unfrequently the word blgen or bu, ' both/ 
as in the following line : — 

Ne forlaete ic pe, f enden wit lifia^ bu} 

CiEDMON, Genesis^ line 2256. 

Instances also occur in which bu^ ' both/ and twa 
or tu^ ^two/ are together added to the form of the 
dual. As the number was by no means essential to 
expression, its fate was sealed as soon as the force 
originally belonging to it was felt to be going. It sur- 
vived the Norman Conquest some two hundred years ; 
but it was never in any sense common. In the thir- 
teenth century it disappeared entirely. 

106. The second fact to be noticed is, that the 
feminine nominative singular of the third person, and 
all the forms of the plural, have been entirely sup- 
planted by the corresponding forms of the demon- 
strative pronoun se, seo, pcet (94). This transition 
began to take place during the Old English period, 
but was not fully completed till the fifteenth century. 
It doubtless owed its origin to the desire of distin- 
guishing between the forms of the pronoun, which had 
frequently come to be the same for different genders, 
cases, and numbers. The form he, for example, 
sometimes represents in Early English the modern 

1 I shall not desert thee while we two both live. 



266 English Language. 

masculine he, the feminine she, and the plural they , 
and likewise hi77i or hem stands for the modern mas- 
culine him, the neuter //, and the plural them. 

107. The resort to the demonstrative was not un- 
natural. In the case of the feminine pronouns it 
began to manifest itself in the twelfth century. A 
number of forms based upon s'eo, ^that one' (94) early 
took their places alongside of h'eo, though it is not 
impossible that they were influenced to some extent 
by the latter. Among them were scheo, scho, sco, sche, 
and she, the last of which prevailed over all others, 
and in the fifteenth century became the standard form. 
As usual, in all these movements the Northern dialect 
led the way ; but in every case the triumph of the 
newer forms was a very slow one. 

108. This is especially true of the substitution of 
the plural forms of the demonstrative, pa, para, and 
f^cEm for the original plural of the third person. As 
a result, two sets of forms for this number existed side 
by side for a long period, hi, here, and hem in the 
South, thei, their, and them in the North. In the ht- 
erary language of the Midland during the fourteenth 
century there was a temporary compromise between 
these rival inflections. Thei or they appears in the 
nominative plural, here and hem in the oblique cases. 
This is the regular declension in Chaucer. In the 
fifteenth century, however, here and hem were univer- 
sally displaced in the literary speech by //zm' and them. 
It is to be added that the forms which these words as- 
sumed in English were largely influenced by the cor- 



The Personal Pronouns. 267 

responding Old Norse forms, Peir, peirra, pehn, that 
tongue having profoundly affected the Northern dialect 
in which this new plural first appeared. Furthermore, 
the old objective hem has left a relic of itself in 
modern speech in the contraction 'em, which, in books 
printed in the f^.rst part of the seventeenth century, 
often appears as 'he7n, as if it had been contracted 
from the7?i, and were not itself the original form. 

109. The third point to be marked is that the 
original Anglo-Saxon accusative has disappeared, and 
the modern objective case is derived, not from it; but 
from the dative ; that is to say, me comes from the 
dative m'e, and not the accusative mec; him, from hwi, 
and not from hine ; her, from hire, and not from h~i 
or hlo. The only exception to this rule is to be found 
in the neuter pronoun of the third person. In this 
the modern form // has been derived from the accusa- 
tive, and not the dative. Yet how universal was the 
preference for the latter case is made clear by the 
fact that, when the plural of the demonstrative si was 
introduced into the pronoun of the third person, it 
was the dative /'^;;7, * them,' and not the accusative 
pa, that was adopted for the objective. 

no. This disuse of the accusative began early. 
Even in Anglo-Saxon the strengthened forms mec, pec, 
usic, and eowic, were largely discarded for 7?ie, P'e, us, 
and low, which were the same as the dative ; and the 
former died out immediately after the Conquest, if, 
indeed, they can be said to be existing at the time of 
it. The accusatives of the third person lasted longer ; 



268 English Language. 

but by the end of the twelfth century they were some- 
times supplanted by the dative, and, by the end of 
the thirteenth, they had almost universally been aban- 
doned. In the neuter pronoun the dative form him 
and the accusative hit or // were both for a long period 
in use : indeed, instances of the former occur late in 
the sixteenth century. But much before that time, 
under the increasing tendency to regard him as belong- 
ing exclusively to the masculine, the use of // for the 
neuter became general ; and for the sake of distinc- 
tion, this accusative was adopted in Modern English 
as the form for the new objective case. 

III. Besides these general statements, certain 
special changes are to be noted in the form of the 
pronouns. In the first person ic passed in Southern 
English into the form ich ; in Northern English into 
the form ik. From both of these words the final con- 
sonant or consonants occasionally fell away, leaving 
nothing but the vowel. This did not take place often 
in very Early English, but it occurred in both dialects, 
though perhaps more commonly in that of the North. 
Still in all regions of the country, the full and the 
shortened forms were used interchangeably, ich and / 
or ik and /, being found in the same work and some- 
times in the same sentence. The practice increased 
of using the simple vowel alone, especially in the 
country north of the Thames. In the fourteenth cen- 
tury it had become almost universally adopted in 
the language of literature. For a long while it was 
generally written with a small letter, as it is now by 



The Personal Pronouns, 269 

the uneducated ; but before the beginning of the 
Modern EngHsh period, it was regularly designated by 
a capital. 

112. In the first part of the Early English period 
the genitives of the first and second personal pronouns 
often dropped their final -n^ and accordingly exhibited 
the double forms 7nin and mi, thin and thi. The 
neuter hit came at the same time under the influence 
of a tendency which has been very powerful in all 
periods of the language, and dropped its initial h. 
Still both // and hit flourished side by side for several 
hundred years ; and while, after the fourteenth cen- 
tury, the former became more common, the latter 
did not die out entirely till the sixteenth. A form 
ha or a, used for several pronouns, and among 
them he, made its appearance at the beginning of 
the Early English period. Though still found in the 
provincial dialects, it is only of importance here 
from the fact that it is constantly employed by the 
EHzabethan dramatists, and put into the mouths of 
the highest as well as the lowest characters. A relic 
of it is preserved in the interjection quotha, that is, 
' quoth he.' 

113. At the beginning of the Middle Enghsh period 
the following paradigms of the personal pronouns 
exemplify the usage of Chaucer, its representative 
author. In all cases where varying forms in equally 
common use exist, — and there are numbers of such, 
— those most closely resembling Modern English have 
been selected. 



2 70 English Language. 



FIRST 


PERSON. 


SECOND 


PERSON. 


Singular. 


Plural. 


Singular. 


Plural. 


Nom. I, 




we, 


thou. 


ye, 


Gen. j"'" 
I mi, 


} 


oure, 


r thin, ^ 
tthi, / 


youre, 


Objec, me. 




us. 
THIRD 

SINGULAR. 


thee. 
PERSON. 


you, 

PLURAL. 


Masculine. 




Feminine. 


Neuter. 


All Genders 


Nom. he, 




she, 


{""} 


they, 


Gen. his, 




hire. 


his. 


here, 


(93;V^. him. 




hire. 


If'! 


hem. 



114. That the Middle Enghsh personal pronoun is 
about the same as the Modern English, save in certain 
forms of the third person, is evident at a glance. 
Their and them took the place of here and hem in the 
fifteenth century, as has been stated. Up to the seven- 
teenth century, however, his remained as the genitive 
of both the neuter and the masculine, just as the dative 
for both had at one time been him. But by the end 
of the fifteenth century the h had been generally dis- 
carded from hit. In consequence, his did not seem 
so properly the genitive of // as it did of he. As the 
disposition grew in strength to regard his as belojiging 
exclusively to the latter, various methods were resorted 



The Personal Pronouns, 271 

to in order to avoid employing it as a neuter. One 
of the first of these was to use it, without any in- 
flection, as a genitive ; and this occurs certainly as 
early as the fourteenth century, and was common during 
the fifteenth and sixteenth. The creation and gradual 
adoption of the form its has already been told, and 
need not be here repeated.^ Before the Restoration 
of the Stuarts, in 1660, it had become firmly estab- 
Hshed in the language ; and, by the end of the seven- 
teenth century, most men, doubtless, supposed it had 
always been in existence. Milton is the principal 
writer of the middle of the seventeenth century who 
exhibits any reluctance in using it. As is well known, 
it is found but three times in his poetry, and then only 
where it is almost essential to clearness. It, however, 
was sometimes used by him in his prose.^ 

115. One thing to be especially marked in the para- 
digms given of the Middle English personal pronouns 
is, that there is no confusion between the nominative 
and objective. In Chaucer's writings ye and you, 
for example, are never confounded. The former is 
mvariably the case of the subject ; the latter, the case 
of tlie object. Occasional instances of confusion 
between the two cases have been discovered in 
writings of the fourteenth century; but they are so 
few in number, that it is more reasonable to attribute 
the great majority of them to blunders by the copyists 
rather than to intention on the part of the author. 
Undoubtedly the resemblance in writing, already 

1 Pages 165-167. 2 E.g., Areopagitica, Arber's reprint, page 71. 



2/2 English Language. 

pointed out/ between the letters y and the Rune / 
contributed largely to the confusion of the two forms, 
so \h.'3X pou was frequently indistinguishable from you; 
at any rate, it was not distinguished from it. As a 
result, yoic was supposed to be meant when thou was 
intended. As is inevitable in such cases, what was 
originally a blunder came soon to be accepted as an au- 
thorized form. Besides this, there were other agencies 
at work to break down the distinction between the 
nominative ye and the objective ji^^^/^. In the fifteenth 
century this result had come to pass to a considerable 
extent. Still it was not till after the middle of the 
sixteenth century that the confusion between the two 
forms showed itself on any large scale. Nor did it 
then completely. Our version of the Bible, for in- 
stance, has regularly ye in the nominative and you 
in the accusative : but in this particular it is more 
archaic than is the language of the period to which 
it nominally belongs. 

ii6. With the plural of the second person this con- 
fusion of cases has become permanently established 
in the language. You, the representative of the 
original dative and accusative, is now the regular form 
for both nominative and objective. Ye is also still 
used, but likewise indifferently in the two cases, and 
with comparative infrequency in either. After the 
middle of the sixteenth century, it looked for a time 
as if it were possible that a similar result might be 
reached in the case of all the personal pronouns. 

1 See pages 34-35. 



The Personal Pronouns. 273 

The distinction between nominative and objective 
was showing everywhere symptoms of breaking down. 
In fact, if the language of the Ehzabethan drama 
represents fairly the language of society, — and we 
can hardly take any other view, — great license in 
this respect had begun to prevail. Me^ thee, us, you, 
him, her, and them were frequently treated as nomi- 
natives ; while the corresponding nominative forms 
were treated as objectives. Modernized editions of 
the authors of that period do not in this respect rep- 
resent justly the usage of the time, as in all or nearly 
all of them changes in the text are silently made. But, 
with the exception of ye and you, this confusion of 
case did not become universally accepted. The 
original distinction gradually reasserted itself, and is 
now perhaps more strongly insisted upon, at least 
by grammarians, than at any period since the six- 
teenth century. Yet the popular, and to some extent, 
the literary speech has preserved expressions which 
still show this disregard of strict inflection. One of 
these is the frequent use of the objective case after 
than and as. But it is more particularly noticeable 
where the pronoun / is the second of two pronouns 
that are governed by a preposition or a verb. One 
of these colloquial phrases, between you and /, has 
been exceedingly common from the time of Queen 
Elizabeth, and can be found in the writings of many 
well-known authors in our speech. 

117. Certain other phrases, such as, it is me, it is 
him, it is her, are much oftener heard at the present 



274 English Language. 

day than the foregoing. They are perhaps more com- 
mon than during the Ehzabethan period. The wider 
extension of their use may possibly be due to an imi- 
tation, conscious or unconscious, of French expres- 
sions Hke c'est moi ; at any rate, they were very 
frequent in the eighteenth century, when the influence 
of the French language on our own was most decided. 
The expressions, condemned as they almost invariably 
are by grammarians, have on their side the authority 
of many of the most eminent writers of our tongue.^ 

1 Out of scores and scores of instances of the various locutions 
mentioned that could be quoted, I give here a few examples, citing 
most of them from authors of the Elizabethan period, educated at 
the universities. Accordingly, but two have been taken from Shak- 
speare, who would furnish a large number : — 

What difference is between the duke and If 

Webster, White Devil, page 37 (Ed. of 1861). 

Nor earth nor heaven shall part my love and /. 

Greene, Ja7nes IV., act i. sc. i. 

Malvolio, Besides, you waste the treasure of your time with a 

foolish knight. 
Agmcheck, That's 7ne, I warrant you. 

- Shakspeare, Twelfth Night, act ii. sc. 5. 

for she tnat was thy Lucrece. 

Shakspeare, Rape of Lucrece, hne 1682. 

Nor thee nor them, thrice-noble Tamburlaine, 
Shall want my heart to be with gladness pierced 
To do you honor and security. 

Marlowe, Tamburlaine /., act i. sc. 2. 

O wretched Abigail, what hast thee done ? 

Marlowe, yew of Malta, act ii. sc. 4. 

Be thee vicegerent of his royalty. 

Greene and Lodge, Loo king- Glass for London, page 
118 (Ed. of 1861). 



The Pei'sonal Pivnoiins. 275 

It is to be added that the expressions^ H is I, it is he, 
and the similar ones, are not usual before the fifteenth 
century, if they exist at all before that time. The form 
in Anglo-Saxon was, Ic €07Ji hit, ' I am it.' In Old 
English this usually appeared as, / // a7n. Later it is 
found in Chaucer as, it am I. 

118. It has already been remarked that the Anglo- 
Saxon genitives mln and fnn frequently dropped the 
-n in the Old English period. Precisely corresponding 
in form to these genitives were the adjective pronouns 
mm and pin, which had originally a full set of inflec- 
tions, according to the indefinite declension. These 

For Amurath's stout stomach shall undo 
Both he /ii7nself2iX\d. all his other crew. 

Greene, Alphonsus^ act v. page 245 (Ed. of 1861). 

What would you with the king ? Is it him you seek ? 

Marlowe, Edward II., act ii. sc. 5. 

'Tis not thy wealth, but her that I esteem. 

Marlowe, Jew of Malta, act ii. sc. 4. 

'Tis her I so admire. 

Fletcher, Faithful Shepherdess, act i. sc. 3. 

Thyself and the7jt shall never part from me 
Before I crown you kings in Asia. 

Marlowe, Tamburlaine /., act i. sc. 2. 

It was not me you followed last night to my lodging from the 
Park. — Wycherley, Love in a Wood, act v. sc. 5. 

I may be pretty well assured it is not me. 

Addison, Drummer, act ii. sc. i. 

It is evident, then, that if Atossa was the first inventress of epis- 
tles, these that carry the name of Phalaris, who was so much older 
than her, must needs be an imposture. — Bentley, Dissertation 
upon Phalaris (Ed. Dyce) , volume ii. page 126. 



2/6 Ejiglish Language, 

also dropped the final -n at the same thue. Corre- 
sponding to the genitive plurals, also, were the adjective 
pronouns ure or use?^, ^ our/ and 'eower, *your.' The 
corresponding adjective pronoun of the third person 
was sin ; but, even when Anglo-Saxon was committed 
to writing, it was already on the point of dying out. 
Sin occurs not often under any circumstances, and 
almost wholly in poetry, though it is not unknown to 
prose. -^ Its loss has been a serious disadvantage to 
the precision and clearness of the language ; for while 
its place was taken in Anglo-Saxon by the genitives 
his, hire, and hira of the third personal pronoun, it 
was not filled. 

119. These genitives of the first and second per- 
sonal pronouns were, therefore, the same in form as 
the nominative singular of the corresponding posses- 
sive pronouns during the Anglo-Saxon period. But, 
inasmuch as then the former were governed directly 
by verbs or prepositions, while the latter had full ad- 
jective inflections, the distinction between them was 
in most cases apparent. The changes that subsequently 
took place in the language rendered this distinction 
less obvious. On the one hand, the genitive became 
more and more confined to the expression of the 
possessive relation, and was no longer made the object 
of verbs and prepositions. On the other hand, the 
adjective inflection of the possessive pronoun had en- 
tirely disappeared. As a result the distinction between 
the two classes became rather nominal than real. 

1 E.g., Blickling Homilies^ page 125, line 21. 



The Personal Pronoims. 277 

Whether the same word should be regarded as the 
genitive of the personal pronoun^ or itself as the pos- 
sessive adjective pronoun, depended mainly upon 
definition. The genitive, especially in the plural, 
lasted down, to be sure, to the end of the fourteenth 
century, in phrases in which there could be no doubt 
as to its being a personal pronoun, such as, at oure 
alther cost^ meaning ^ at the cost of us all ; ' or, / am 
yowre aller lied, I am yowre allei^ hele^ that is, ^ I am 
the head of you all, I am the salvation {heal) of you 
all.' Even down to the beginning of the sixteenth 
century similar usages occasionally occur.^ Still such 
expressions as these, comparatively infrequent then, 
have not been preserved in Modern Enghsh : hence 
some grammarians consider the genitive of the per- 
sonal pronouns as no longer existing, terming these 
forms, wherever they occur, possessive adjective pro- 
nouns. In either case their history is the same. 

120. The contracted forms 77ii and thi, for min and 
thin, made their appearance at the end of the twelfth 
century, and were at first used indifferently. As early 
certainly as the fourteenth century, however, a prac- 
tice sprang up of using min and thin before words 
beginning with a vowel or silent h, and mi and thi 
before consonants. This custom, it may be added, 

1 Chaucer, Canterbury Tales, Prologue, line 799. 

2 Langland, Piers Plowman, Text B, xix. 468. 

3 It was their bothes (' of them both ') clishonoures and theirs and 
hirs also to suffer hym in sanctuary. — SIR THOMAS MORE, Life 
of Edward V. in EUis's reprint of Harding's Chronicle, etc., page 
487. 



2/8 Ejtglish Language. 

extended to 7ion^ ^none/ with the result that the 
abbreviated form no has become the estabhshed one 
in Modern Enghsh. The practice was observed, with 
a fair degree of regularity, up to the latter half of the 
sixteenth century, after which it became largely a mat- 
ter of individual choice. In process of time 77iy and 
thy, as they had then generally come to be spelled, 
were used almost exclusively before nouns, and mine 
and thine when standing alone in the predicate, except 
in a few phrases, such as ' mine host,' that had sur- 
vived the general abandonment of the ancient usage. 
The e of mine and thine is, of course, inorganic. 

121. The restriction of mine and thine to the abso- 
lute construction in the predicate was undoubtedly 
aided, to a great extent, by the creation of the forms 
oures, yotires, and hires, ^hers,' and he7rs, ^theirs,' 
and their confinement to this same employment. 
Originally the pronoun, when used absolutely in the 
predicate, had simply the form of the genitive of the 
personal pronoun, which was the same as the nomi- 
native of the possessive. This was the prevalent prac- 
tice, not only in the Anglo-Saxon, but during the Old 
English period also, at least in the Midland and South- 
ern dialects. For example, the sentence ' the land is 
ou7's ' would in the thirteenth century have appeared 
as ^ the land is oti;^,' The feeling, that, in such con- 
structions, the pronouns were really genitives of the 
personal pronoun, and not possessive adjectives, 
seems to have been the ruling one. But by the four- 
teenth century, -s had become the common termina- 



The Perso7ial Pronouns, 279 

tion of the genitive of all nouns, and was the termi- 
nation of his^ the masculine and neuter genitive of the 
third personal pronoun. This letter was in conse- 
quence added by a false analogy to the other forms. 
Accordingly, early in the Middle English period, cures, 
y cures, hires, ' hers/ heres, ' theirs/ took their place 
alongside of the earlier oui^e, ycicre, hm, and here. 
The former, therefore, are strictly double genitives. 
They first made their appearance in the speech of the 
North, but, in the fourteenth century, became thor- 
oughly estabHshed in the literary language of the 
Midland dialect. For a time they flourished side by 
side with the forms without -s, which etymologically 
are more correct. In the fifteenth century they dis- 
placed the latter altogether, and are now the ones 
exclusively in use in the construction mentioned.^ 
When their was adopted as the genitive of the per- 
sonal pronoun, in place of here (108), it also added 
an -i-.in such cases, like the others. 

122. This result did not happen, however, without 
a struggle. Other forms existed, w^hich have left 
traces of themselves, in the language of the unedu- 
cated, to this day. The old ;2-declension, both of 
the noun and adjective, still survived in the fourteenth 
century in certain parts of the country. It was then, 
as we have seen, applied to words which had no right 
to it in Anglo-Saxon. Various dialects, consequently, 

1 The latest use of the simple form — not as an intentional archa- 
ism — I have observed is in Capgrave's Chronicle of Eftgland (about 
1450), under date of A.D. 1024: " They feyned it was her (hers)." 



28o English Language. 

especially of the South of England, instead of form- 
ing, in these cases, a double genitive in -j-, formed one 
in -71. The result was, that, in place of oicres, youres, 
hires, and he^rs, they had the forms oiwen, yoiiren, 
hiren^ hei^en (i.e., their'n). To this the analogy of 
mine and thine unquestionably contributed. These 
forms in -n are not infrequent in the Wycliffite ver- 
sion of the Bible, made about 1380. In consequence, 
during the latter half of the fourteenth century, the 
genitive of the personal pronoun, when used in the 
predicate, can be found in three forms, — without 
any ending, with the ending -s, or with the ending -n. 
The following examples will show this clearly : — 

I wil be youre in al that ever I may. 

Chaucer, Canon's Yeo?7ian's Tale, line 237. 

My gold is youres, whanne that you lest. 

Ship man's Tale, line 284. 

But the erthetilieris seiden togidere, This is the eire; come 
ye, sle we hym, and the eritage schal be ourun. — Mark xii. 8. 

Blessed be the pore in spirit, for the kyngdam in hevenes is 
heren (theirs). — Mattheiv v. 3. 

Restore thou to hir alle thinges that ben hern (hers). 

II Kings viii. 6 (Purvey's Recension). 

123. The forms in -n, however, speedily disap- 
peared from the language of literature, though they 
have exhibited a marked vitality in the language of 
low life. Here, again, whenever their took the place 
of here, their'n was formed, after the analogy of the 
other forms in -7i, by those who employed the latter. 



The Personal Pronoims. 281 

In fact, this was sometimes extended to his, giving us 
his en or his'n as a collateral form. This can be found 
as early as the fifteenth century. In one of the man- 
uscripts of Chaucer occur, for example, the following 
lines : — 

Hire fredom fond Arcyte in such manere 
That al hise^i is that hirs was, moche or lyte. 

Anelida and A7' cite ^ line 107 (Harleian MS. 372). 

These forms in -n, it is to be said finally, were once 
falsely explained as contractions of oicr own, your own, 
her own, and so forth. 

124. A somewhat peculiar use of his to take the 
place of the ending of the genitive case developed 
itself in Old English, and prevailed somewhat exten- 
sively in the early portion of the Modern English 
period. We can see it exemplified in the following 
passage from Shakspeare's fifty-fifth sonnet: — 

Nor Mars his sword nor war's quick fire shall burn 
The hving record of your memory. 

Traces of this usage can be discovered even in Anglo- 
Saxon.^ In the first text of Layamon, written about 
1200, it occurs rarely, but is frequently found in the 
second text, supposed to be about fifty years later. 
But it was not till the sixteenth century that it began 
to appear often. It is almost always used with names 
of persons, particularly with those ending with the 

1 Matzner quotes from Numbers xiii. 29 : }?£er we gesawon Enac 
his cynryn. In Authorized Version : We saw the children of Anak 
there. lb., verse 28. 



282 English Language. 

sound of s. After the middle of the seventeenth 
century it was but Uttle employed, though it lasted 
into the eighteenth. The title of Pope's translation 
from Statins, first printed in 1712, has, for instance, 
the heading, " The First Book of Statins his Thebais." 
In scattered instances and in peculiar constructions 
this use of his can be found much later. 

125. This peculiar use of his as a genitive sign led 
to the belief which once largely prevailed, that the 
-es of the genitive singular — which in Early English 
often appeared as -is or -ys — was in its origin a 
contraction of the pronoun his. This was not only 
widely accepted, but was at one time held and taught 
by many grammarians, in particular by those of the 
seventeenth century. Even as late as 1711, Addison, 
in commenting on the letter s^ gives in his adhesion 
to this view. ^^ I might here observe," he says, "that 
the same single letter on many occasions does the 
office of a whole word and represents the his and her 
of our forefathers." ^ This belief in regard to his led 
to the extension in the sixteenth century of the same 
construction to he7' with feminine nouns, and occa; 
sionally to their with the plural. For instance, Bar- 
nabe Riche, in his story of Apollonius and Silla, in the 
work published in 15 81, under the title of " Riche his 
Farewell to Militarie Profession," begins his account 
of the heroine with these words : — 

The daughter her name was Silla.^ 

1 Spectator, No. 135, Aug. 4, 171 1. 

2 Shakspeare Society reprint (1846), page 69. For their as 



The Reflexive Pronouns. 283 

Still, as in the similar case of his^ the pronoun was 
rarely used, save with the names of persons. 

126. In Anglo-Saxon the simple personal pronouns 
were constantly employed also as reflexives. This 
use of them has lasted down through all periods of 
the language to this day, though it is far less common 
now than formerly. From its very nature it led fre- 
quently to ambiguity. If there were no other reflexives 
than the simple personal pronouns, such an expression 
as "he killed him " would have, beside the sense it 
now has, the possible signification of " he killed him- 
self." Consequently a disposition began to be mani- 
fested in the earliest speech, to make the reflexive 
sense more clear and emphatic. This was accom- 
plished by the addition of the forms of the adjective 
^^^to the corresponding forms of the personal pro- 
nouns ; thus the dative himself would be in Anglo- 
Saxon him selfum ; the accusative, hine selfne. This 
tendency has gone on increasing to the present time, 
so that outside of the language of poetry, the simple 
personal pronouns are rarely used any longer in a 
reflexive sense. When this does occur, it is usually 
in phrases where the context would dispel any doubt 
as to the meaning. It is perhaps most common when 
the pronoun is preceded by a preposition, though 
even here it is far from being universal. In such an 



representing the 'j of the genitive, the following example will serve, 
from Humphrey Monmouth's petition to Cardinal Wolsey, in 1528. 
" I did promise him (Tyndale) x I. sterling to paie for my father 
and mother there sowles and al Christen sowles." 



284 E^tglish Language. 

expression as ^' he looked about him/' Jmn is a genuine 
reflexive, precisely equivalent in meaning to himself. 
On the other hand, in the expression "he looked at 
him/' hi?7i is the simple personal pronoun. 

127. During the Old English period, self, like other 
adjectives, gradually lost its inflection. In conse- 
quence it was often looked upon, both then and 
later, merely as a substantive, forming by its combina- 
tion with the personal pronoun an independent word. 
This tendency was even seen in the Anglo-Saxon.^ 
This seems to be the reason why self, when stripped of 
its inflections, was joined to the genitive of the 
pronouns of the first and second persons, or, perhaps, 
it would be more correct to say, it was treated as a 
substantive, with which agreed the possessive adjective 
pronouns corresponding to the genitive of these per- 
sonal pronouns. At any rate, during the Old English 
period, the forms myself thyself, myself, and yourself 
became established in the language and have since 
remained unchanged. Along with them were also in 
use, me self, thee self, us self, and yoic self. Both kinds 
of forms, in fact, were sometimes employed in the 
same work. Still the latter, based upon the joining of 
self to the original dative case, called later the objec- 
tive, could not maintain itself against the former, and 
died out during the Middle English period. 

128. The case was difl'erent with the pronouns of 

1 Matzner cites, along with others, the following extract from 
the Anglo-Saxon Gospel of Nicodemus, 34 : Hym sylf wses on 

heofenas farende. 



The Reflexive Pronoicns. 285 

the third person. There the forms resulting from 
the combination of self with the dative became the 
ones established in the language. Himself, herself, 
and heinself, ^^ themselves," were the forms early in 
estabhshed use. Itself xtdlly belongs to the same class, 
because in the adoption of the dative to represent both 
the original dative and accusative, it, though strictly 
an accusative, had for reasons previously given (no) 
become the new objective. Later there were attempts 
occasionally made to cause these reflexives to conform 
to those of the first and second persons. In the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries particularly, his self 
and their self or their selves are occasionally found ; 
but they never could be said to have anything like 
the prevalence of the common forms. 

129. The form themselves, for which their selves was 
sometimes substituted, represents a plural inflection 
which these pronouns were late in receiving. The 
only modification that for a long time took place in 
them was the frequent adding of the syllable -en, — 
sometimes abbreviated to e, — giving such forms as 
myselve{ii) , himselve{n). This termination, however, 
furnished merely a collateral form : it did not indicate 
inflection. The plural of these reflexives remained the 
same as the singular; no distinction existed between 
them till towards the close of the Middle English 
period. As late as the beginning of the sixteenth century 
ourself and yourself, for illustration, would be gener- 
ally, perhaps invariably, the same in both numbers. 
In the first half of the century, however, the plural 



286 English Language, 

ending -s was added to the reflexive forms which 
were plural in signification, and this practice speedily 
became universal. In conclusion, the disposition to 
use, as the subject of the sentence, the personal pro- 
noun compounded with self in place of the corre- 
sponding simple personal pronoun^ goes back to the 
Old English, if not to the Anglo-Saxon,^ period, and 
has been in common and constant use since. 

130. There remains a usage the consideration of 
which belongs more strictly to syntax than even the 
one just mentioned ; but, as it is of some importance 
as connected with the disuse of certain forms of the 
verb, it will receive a slight notice at this point. This 
is the general abandonment in English of the singular 
pronoun of the second person, and the substitution of 
the plural in its place. In this respect our tongue 
does not differ from the other cultivated tongues of 
modern Europe ; but, in its avoidance of this particu- 
lar form, it has gone far beyond them all. In them it 
is the language of superiority, or affectionate intimacy ; 
with us it is, outside of its employment in poetry, 
limited, for all practical purposes, to the language of 
prayer. This result has been reached gradually. The 
Anglo-Saxon, like the Greek and Latin, never used, 
in addressing an individual, anything but the second 
person of the singular ; and this continued to be the 
case, in our tongue also, for nearly two centuries after 
the Conquest. 

1 E.g. Myself am Naples. Shakspeare, Tempest ^ act i. sc. 2. 

2 See sec. 127, note. 



Pronouns of Address, 287 

131. The substitution of the plural ye and you for 
thoic and thee in speaking to a single person, made its 
appearance in the language towards the close of the 
thirteenth century. At the outset it was not merely 
little in use, it was restricted to narrow and well-defined 
limits. When so substituted, it was generally, if not 
invariably, employed as a mark of respect in address- 
ing a superior. In the fourteenth and fifteenth cen- 
turies the use of the plural steadily increased, and in 
the sixteenth century it became the standard form of 
polite conversation. Thou and thee followed to some 
extent the history of similar forms in other tongues. 
For some two centuries it may be said that in a 
general way they were employed to denote affection 
or inferiority or contempt. There is a well-known 
passage in Shakspeare, in which one of the characters 
is represented as urging another to write an insulting 
challenge.^ "Taunt him," he says, "with the license 
of ink : if thou thou'st him some thrice, it shall not 
be amiss." This example is frequently coupled with 
the abusive language directed by Coke, the attorney- 
general, towards Sir Walter Raleigh, when the latter 
was undergoing trial for high treason in November, 
1603. During the proceedings Raleigh was addressed 
as yoic by those acting as judges. This pronoun was 
sometimes employed also by the attorney-general, but 
whenever he wished to express denunciation, he re- 
sorted to thou, and did so intentionally. When 
Raleigh denied that he was responsible for Lord 

1 Twelfth Night, act iii. sc. 2. 



288 English Language. 

Cobham's course, Coke retorted, ^^ All that he did was 
by thy instigation, thou viper : for I thou thee, thou 
traitor !"^ 

132. Such examples are sufficient to show that the 
use of the singular towards persons of the same station, 
but standing in no special relation of intimacy to one 
another, was intended to be insulting and was so 
regarded. Its employment towards inferiors and for 
the purpose of expressing affection can be met with 
constantly, especially in the pages of the Elizabethan 
dramatists. Yet the distinction between thou, thee 
and ye, you, was never thorough-going in EngHsh. The 
rigid rules that have been authoritatively laid down for 
their exact employment will not stand the test of careful 
examination. The same character addressing another 
in the same conversation will frequently pass from the 
singular pronoun to the plural, and from the plural pro- 
noun to the singular, without any conceivable reason. 
The transition will sometimes even occur in the same 
sentence. In particular, it is often the case that the 
nominative or objective of the singular will be found 
immediately joined with the possessive pronoun repre- 
senting the plural. The pages of any Elizabethan 

1 The following conversation between the two, later in the trial, 
will show the use of these pronouns : — 

Coke. Thou art the most vile and execrable traitor that ever lived. 

Raleigh. You speak indiscreetly, barbarously, and uncivilly. 

Coke. I want words sufficient to express thy viperous treason. 

Raleigh. I think you want words, indeed, for you have spoken 
one thing half a dozen times. 

Coke. Thou art an odious fellow ; thy name is hateful to all the 
realm of England for thy pride. 



The Inter7'ogative Pronouns. 289 

dramatist will exemplify these practices.^ But after 
the sixteenth century, the singular form was more and 
more disused, and by the eighteenth had become com- 
paratively infrequent. As thou was almost the only 
subject the second person of the verb ever had, the 
disuse of the pronoun led indirectly to the compara- 
tive disuse of this form of the verb. 

The Interrogative Pronouns. 

133. In the Anglo-Saxon period the interrogative 
pronouns were hwa, ' who ' ; hwcet, ' what ' ; hwilc, ' of 
what sort' ; and hwceSer, ^ which of two.' During the 
twelfth century the words which had originally begun 
with the combination hzv changed their form, and 
were spelled with wh; and this has from that time 
remained the universal practice. Of these four inter- 
rogatives, hwilc and hwcEderhd.^ a full set of adjective 
inflections according to the indefinite declension, vary- 
ing therefore with the gender. On the other hand, 
hwa was used both as a masculine and a feminine, the 
special feminine form which belonged to the primitive 
Teutonic having disappeared from the Anglo-Saxon 
and from the other sister-languages, with the excep- 
tion of the Gothic. Of course, hwcet is strictly the 
neuter of hwa. 

134. In Anglo-Saxon, hwa and hwcet have the 
following inflections : — 

"1 E.g. I am more serious than my custom : you 
Must be so too, if heed me ; which to do 
Trebles thee o'er. 

Shakspeare, Tempest, act ii. so. i. 



290 English Language. 



Masculine and Feminine. 


Neuter. 


Nom, hwa, 


hwset, 


Gen. hwses, 


hwaes, 


Dat. hwam, 


hwam, 


Ace. hwone. 


hwaet, 


Inst, 


hwy. 



In general it can be said that this pronoun has had 
the same history essentially as the personal pronouns, 
especially the pronoun of the third person. In the 
Early English period the dative hwam, ' whom/ sup- 
planted the accusative hwone in the masculine, as 
him did hine. As him gradually became confined to 
this gender, and the accusative hit or // took its place 
in the neuter, so whom came, even earher, to be used 
only of persons, and the accusative what was con- 
fined to inquiries about objects without life. Again, 
just as his lost its original neuter sense, and was re- 
placed by its, so whose has been hmited to persons. 
Questions in regard to things are no longer intro- 
duced by whose, but instead by what or which with 
the preposition of. 

135- So, also, in the sixteenth century, the same 
confounding of the nominative and objective cases 
that occurred with the personal pronouns occurred 
also with this interrogative. Whom is sometimes 
used where strict grammar requires who ; but far 
more frequently was who used where whom would 
be the form expected. This usage becomes first con- 
spicuous in the dramatic writings of the EHzabethan 



The Interrogative Pronouns. 291 

period. In them sentences such as these constantly 
occur : — 

Who have we here ? — Peele, Edward I. 
Who do you take me to be ? — Greene, George a- Greene. 
I see who he laughed at. — Jonson, Every Man in his 
Humor. 

The frequency with which they are put into the mouths 
of speakers of every social grade furnishes clear proof 
that they were not felt to be improper. But the 
usage of who for whom is far from having been lim- 
ited to this period. It may be said to h^ve charac- 
terized the colloquial speech of England from the 
latter half of the sixteenth century to the present time, 
if the language of conversation has been justly repre- 
sented in the literature which purports to reproduce 
it. So widespread and persistent is this usage, in fact, 
that such a strictly correct sentence, for instance, as 
"Whom did you go to see?" is regarded by many 
educated men as being of the nature of a pedantic 
deviation from the normal method of expression, and 
as representing the artificial speech of grammarians, 
rather than the natural speech of real life. 

136. Hwilc was represented in the dialects and 
sub-dialects of Early English by various forms, among 
which are whidc, wulch, wuch, wich, quilk, 7vhilk, and 
which. Some of them have been made somewhat 
familiar by their occurrence in the Scotch dialect. As 
early as the Middle English period, however, which 
had become established in the language of literature, 



292 English Lmigtcage. 

and has ever since remained the standard form. Like 
its correlative, swilc^ which became such (loi), it is 
a compound of lie, ^ hke/ and was originally inflected 
according to the indefinite declension of the adjective. 
The history of its forms is consequently included in 
the history of that part of speech. 

137. A similar statement can be made of the inter- 
rogative hwcsder, ' which of two/ which was originally 
inflected like the indefinite adjective. The dual sense 
of this word began to fail even in the Anglo-Saxon 
period. In consequence it was sometimes strength- 
ened by the jiumeral, as in Matthew, chapter xxi., verse 
31, where, in the Anglo-Saxon version, we read : — 

Hwse'Ser j?ara twegra dyde >ses faeder willan ? 

This, in the sixteenth century translation now used by 
us, has the same construction : '' Whether of them 
twain did the will of his father? " The use of whether 
as an interrogative pronoun was never very common, 
at least after the fourteenth century. It occasionally 
made its appearance, indeed, down to the end of the 
sixteenth, as, for example : — 

To whether didst thou yield ? — Spanish Tragedy ^ act i. 

Its place was taken by which. The corresponding 
interrogative adverb whether also ceased to be used in 
direct questions,^ though in indirect ones it is regularly 
employed. 

1 E.g, Whether am I not betere to thee than ten sones ? — 
/ Samuel i. 8 (WycHffite version). 



The Relative Pronouns. 293 

138. An interrogative pronoun, signifying " who 
of many," existed in the primitive Teutonic, and was 
transmitted to the Gothic and the Old Norse, but was 
not preserved in the High German or in any dialect of 
the Low Germanic group. Compound forms of the 
interrogatives have been in use during every period of 
English; but the inflection of the simple forms has 
not been in the least modified by this fact. In con- 
clusion, it is to be remarked that the instrumental case 
hwy has given to the tongue the two interrogative 
adverbs how and why. 

The Relative Pronouns. 

139. The Teutonic did not possess a relative in the 
strict sense of the word ; and, for the representation 
of it, the EngHsh, during every period of its history, 
has been obliged to have recourse to other pronouns. 
In Anglo-Saxon the duty of the relative was performed 
by the following words or phrases : — 

1. By the demonstrative pronoun se, slo, pcBt, 

2. By /<? the collateral form of the demonstrative si. 
As this was indeclinable, it could be employed for an 
antecedent of any gender, number, or person. 

3. By the joining of the indeclinable /<? to the forms 
of the demonstrative, giving, for example, in the nomi- 
native singular, s'e /^e, seo fie, ficet pe, or pcette, 

4. By the joining of fie to the personal pronouns, 
frequently with words intervening. 

140. After the Conquest the use of fie was the first 



294 English Language. 

to be given up, — a result which was unavoidably 
hastened by the disposition to employ that form ex- 
clusively for the definite article. Still it was used 
occasionally as late as the beginning of the thirteenth 
century. All the forms of the demonstrative se^ seo, 
f^cet, were maintained as relatives down to the end of 
the twelfth century with varying degrees of vitality. 
The one that was most in use, however, was the neuter 
nominative and accusative singular pcet This speedily 
took the place of the old indeclinable pe as the repre- 
sentative of all persons, genders, numbers, and cases. 
By the beginning of the thirteenth century the use of 
that as a general relative, referring both to persons and 
things, was widely established ; by the middle of the 
same century it had become universal. Such it has 
remained through every subsequent period of EngHsh. 
Other words have taken their place alongside of it ; 
but there has never been a time since the twelfth cen- 
tury when it has not been in constant employment as 
a relative. 

141. With this form alone, however, the language 
was not content. At an early period it began to 
resort to the interrogative pronouns for additional 
relatives. The first of these that came into general use 
was which. The employment of this interrogative as a 
relative goes back to the beginning of the thirteenth 
century, and by the end of the fourteenth it was 
thoroughly estabhshed. It was sometimes preceded 
by the definite article, giving us the expression the 
which. This w^as not uncommon in Early English, 



The Relative Pro7touns, 295 

but it is now archaic, and rarely found except in the 
language of poetry. Still more frequently, perhaps, 
was which followed by that The tendency to use the 
simple form alone constantly grew stronger, however, 
and after the fourteenth century it became the general 
practice. From this century till the seventeenth it 
was regularly employed in reference to persons as well 
as to things. This idiom has been made familiar to all 
by the phrase " Our Father which art in heaven," 
occurring in the Lord's Prayer. In the seventeenth 
century the tendency manifested itself, with the in- 
creasing use of who as a relative, to confine the 
reference of which solely to things. This may be said 
to have now become established. But in many kinds 
of expression usage is still very uncertain, and no hard 
and fast rules can be laid down about the employment 
of this relative which will be sanctioned by the uni- 
form practice of the best writers. 

142. At an early period, whose, and whom, the 
oblique cases of the interrogative who, were also used 
as relatives. This practice may be said to have origi- 
nated about the beginning of the thirteenth century, 
and to have steadily increased in use from that time. 
Sometimes, though rarely, these words, hke which, 
were preceded by the} The use of the nominative 
who as a relative was later. It was not till the early 

1 Desyryng evere more 
To knowen fully, if it youre wille were, 
How ye han ferd and don whyl ye be there : 
The whos welfare and hele ek God encresse. 

Chaucer, Troilus and Cryscydc, v. 1356-1359. 



296 English Language, 

part of the sixteenth century that its employment in 
this way was estabhshed, though occasional instances 
of such usage occur previously. Nor was who, even 
during the sixteenth century, common as a relative, 
though constantly becoming more so ; but in the 
seventeenth century it came into general use. 

143. At the outset zvho as a relative was not abso- 
lutely limited to persons : it occasionally, though not 
frequently, referred to objects without hfe. From the 
latter, however, it was shut out by the distinction that 
gradually developed itself between it and which^ in 
accordance wherewith the former was confined to 
personal and the latter to impersonal antecedents. 
In this matter the objective whom has the same his- 
tory as the nominative who. On the other hand, the 
genitive whose as a relative, has, during all the periods 
of English, been applied equally to persons and to 
things. In the latter usage it is etymologically the 
genitive, not of who^ but of what (134) ; and in sense 
it corresponds both to ^ of whom ' and to ^of which.' 
The grammatical rule sometimes laid down that re- 
quires its antecedent to be a person is neither based 
upon the etymology of the word, nor what in this 
matter is of more importance, the usage of the best 
writers and speakers. 

144. It will be seen from the foregoing account 
that the oldest of our existing relatives is that, and who 
the youngest ; and furthermore, that the marked dis- 
tinction between the use of who and which is later 
than the sixteenth century. Yet how completely all 



The Relative Pronotms. 297 

knowledge of these facts had been lost by the begin- 
nmg of the eighteenth century is clearly shown by one 
of the essays in the Spectator, In No. 78 of that 
periodical, which appeared on May 30, 171 1, Steele, 
the author, appended ^^ the humble petition of who and 
WHICH." In it, among other things, the petitioners are 
represented as making the following statements : — 

We are descended of ancient families, and kept up our 
dignity and honor many years, till the jack-sprat that sup- 
planted us. How often have we found ourselves slighted by 
the clergy in their pulpits and the lawyers at the bar. Nay, 
how often have we heard in one of the most polite and august 
assemblies in the universe, to our great mortification, these 
words, "That that that noble lord urged"; which if one of us 
had had justice done, would have sounded nobler thus, "That 
which that noble lord urged." Senates themselves, the guar- 
dians of British liberty, have degraded us and preferred that to 
us; and yet no decree was ever given against us. In the very 
acts of parliament, in which the utmost right should be done to 
every body, word and thing, we find ourselves often either not 
used, or used one instead of another. In the first and best 
prayer children are taught, they learn to misuse us. " Our 
Father which art in heaven " should be " Our Father who art in 
heaven"; and even a convocation, after long debates, refused 
to consent to an alteration of it. In our general confession we 
say, " Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults," 
which ought to be "who confess their faults." What hopes 
then have we of having justice done us, when the makers of our 
very prayers and laws, and the most learned in all faculties, 
seem to be in a confederacy against us, and our enemies them- 
selves must be our judges? 

145. The confusion between the nominative and 
objective of the interrogative who naturally extended 



298 English Language, 

itself to the word when used as a relative. In one 
instance the confusion has perpetuated itself to our 
own time, and has become established in usage. This 
is in the phrase than zvhom, which has been both com- 
mon and classical from the latter half of the sixteenth 
century. Modern grammarians, in this case, are often 
disposed in consequence to treat than^ not as a con- 
junction, but as a preposition. There is reason to 
suppose that the general perpetuation, if not the cre- 
ation of this particular idiom, was largely influenced 
by the two constructions in Latin of the comparative 
with qtmm, and with the ablative. 

146. One relative construction lasted down to the 
beginning of the Middle EngHsh period, and then died 
out, except in the language of low life. This is the 
fourth one mentioned, as found in Anglo-Saxon, in 
which the demonstrative s'e, slo, pcet was united with 
a personal pronoun. This continued to survive in a 
modified form. The demonstrative that was joined 
with the pronouns of the third person, usually with a 
number of words intervening, to form the relative. 
i\ccordingly that — he was equivalent to who; that — 
his and that — her to whose; that — him and that — 
hem to whom or which. This relative construction is 
found sometimes in Chaucer, and may be illustrated 
by the following examples : — 

A Knight there was and that a worthy man, 
That fro the tyme that he first began 
To ryden out, he loved chivalry e. 

Prologue to Cante7'btiry Tales, lines 43-45. 



The Indefinite Pronouns. 299 

Now fele I wel the goodnesse of this wyf, 
That bothe after her deeth and in her lyf, 
Her grete bountee doubleth her renoun. 

Legend of Good Women^ lines 522-524. 

Wel the hotter ben the gledis^ rede, 

That men hem wren^ with asshen pale and dede. 

Troilus and Cryseyde, ii. 539. 

In the modern language of low life in which this idiom 
is preserved, which takes the place of that^ 

147. The indefinite pronouns, as has been stated, 
had, in general, either the inflection of the noun or of 
the adjective, usually the latter. The words so entitled, 
which existed in Anglo-Saxon, excluding the compound 
forms, have been transmitted to Modern EngHsh, with 
two exceptions. These are the indeclinable/^/<3^, ^many,' 
and man^ ' one.' The former, in Early English, passed 
into the form/^/<?; the latter, into meUy or, with the 
-n dropped, into me. Both died out in the fifteenth 
century. Hiva, ' some one,' was in Anglo-Saxon also 
used as an indefinite pronoun, and lasted down to the 
seventeenth century in certain phrases, such as, " as 
who should say," which, indeed, in poetry, are not 
yet entirely obsolete. Another indefinite pronoun, 
aHy ^ a certain,' was also the numeral * one,' and, even 
during the Anglo-Saxon period, had sometimes the 
force merely of the indefinite article. Its confinement 

1 Live coals. 2 Cover. 

3 See for illustration the following extract from Pepys's Diary, 
under date of Aug. 20, 1663 : " At noon dined at home, and there 
found a little girle which she told my wife her name was Jinny, by 
which name we shall call her." 



300 Englisli Language. 

to this usage became more thoroughly established 
after the Norman Conquest ; and in Early Enghsh the 
custom arose of dropping the final -ii before words 
beginning with a consonant or consonant sound, and 
of retaining it before words beginning with a vowel or 
a silent h. This practice, with shght exceptions, has 
been followed to the present day. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE VERB. 
THE TEUTONIC VERB. GENERAL STATEMENTS. 

148. The inflection of the verb was at one time 
the most perplexing problem that presented itself to 
the student of the English language. In no other 
part of speech did lawlessness apparently run more 
riot ; and about the reason for this condition of things 
absolute ignorance prevailed. The obscurity envel- 
oping the subject was admitted by the early gram- 
marians, who recognized the existence of difficulties 
they could neither explain nor remove. Ben Jonson 
(i573?-i637), as great a scholar as he was a poet, left 
behind him a grammar of our tongue, in which he 
confessed his inability to bring order out of this 
apparent chaos. " We have set down," he wrote, 
" that that in our judgment agreeth best with reason 
and good order. Which notwithstanding, if it seem 
to any to be too rough hewed, let him plane it out 
more smoothly, and I shall not only not envy it, but 
in the behalf of my country, most heartily thank him 
for so great a benefit ; hoping that I shall be thought 
301 > 



302 English Laitgttage. 

sufficiently to have done my part, if in tolling this bell 
I may draw others to a deeper consideration of the 
matter ; for, touching myself, I must needs confess 
that after much painful churning, this only would 
come, which here we have devised." 

149. It was not, indeed, till the present century 
that the comparative study which was made of the 
early Teutonic tongues enabled scholars to set forth 
the exact lines of demarcation that exist between the 
two leading conjugations of the English verb. It was 
only through this study that the origin could be dis- 
covered of the many real and apparent anomalies that 
are still found in this part of speech. The difficulties 
that once beset the subject have now been almost 
entirely cleared away. Yet how little the results of 
these scientific investigations have been diffused is 
made apparent from the fact that the majority of 
English grammars in use continue to repeat without 
hesitation the errors of the past, and retain still the 
inaccurate classification which confounds the regular 
verbs of one conjugation with the irregular verbs of 
the other. To make clear the origin of the peculi- 
arities of this part of speech and the present condition 
of the individual members belonging to it, will be the 
object of the following pages. 

150. To all the Teutonic languages the following 
parts of the verb were common from the earliest 
period of their history : — 

1. Two leading conjugations. 

2. One voice, — the active. 



i 



The Verb. 303 

3. Three finite modes. These are the indicative, 
the subjunctive, — sometimes called the conjunctive, 
and corresponding to the Greek optative, — and the 
imperative. 

4. An infinitive, and an active and a passive par- 
ticiple. 

5. Two simple tenses, — the present and the pret- 
erite. 

6. Two numbers, — the singular and the plural. 

7. Three persons, — the first, second, and third. 
Besides these forms common to all, the Gothic 

retained a middle voice which was used generally in 
a passive sense, and a dual number which was con- 
fined to the first and second persons. The primitive 
method of forming the preterite by reduplication (16) 
it likewise preserved in some forty verbs ; but of this 
traces only can be found in the other Teutonic lan- 
guages (17). 

151. Excluding the Gothic, the Teutonic has ac- 
cordingly lost, of the parts belonging to the primitive 
Indo-European verb, the middle voice (also used as 
a passive), the mode corresponding to the Greek 
subjunctive, the imperfect, aorist, and future tenses, 
and the dual number. 

152. According to its method of forming the pret- 
erite, the Teutonic verb is divided into two great 
conjugations. One is called either the Old, or the 
Strong conjugation ; the other, the New, or the Weak 
conjugation. The distinguishing difference in their 
inflection lies in the addition or in the non-addition 



304 English Language. 

of a syllable to the root to form the preterite. This 
additional syllable, in some modern Teutonic tongues, 
noticeably in English, has been, in many cases, cut 
down to a single letter. Examples of this conjuga- 
tion are words hke kill, kill-ed ; love, love-d ; think, 
though-t. 

153. The addition of a syllable was the particular 
characteristic of the weak conjugation. On the other 
hand, verbs of the strong conjugation add nothing to 
form the preterite. Thus, in Anglo-Saxon, singan 
meant ' to sing ' : the present tense, first person sin- 
gular, was sing-e ; the preterite of the same person 
was sang. No syllable was added, as in the case of 
kill and love. But to this conjugation belongs a 
variation of the radical vowel, which, in the instance 
just cited, is exemplified by the change of / to a. 
This is, indeed, one of its m.ost marked features, and 
one which has been preserved in its whole subsequent 
history. But as variation of the vowel, though not 
due to the same cause, is found in a few verbs of the 
conjugation which added a syllable to form the pret- 
erite, this variation cannot be regarded as a distinc- 
tive peculiarity. Thus, the present sell-e of the Anglo- 
Saxon weak verb sell- an has for its preterite seal-de, 
the e of the one tense giving place to ea in the other ; 
and Modern English still retains this peculiarity in the 
present sell and the preterite sol-d. Accordingly, it is 
the adding, or not adding, of a syllable, which is the 
original fundamental distinction between the two con- 
jugations, and not the variation of vowel. 



The Verb. 305 

154. The term Old is employed because the verbs 
belonging to the conjugation so-called are mainly the 
primitive verbs of the Teutonic. It is from them, or 
from nouns, that the verbs of the New conjugation with 
a few exceptions have been derived, and their name 
corresponds to their origin. The terms Strong and 
Weak were first applied by Grimm, on the theory that 
verbs of the one conjugation expressed the idea of 
past time by a mere modification of their own re- 
sources, that is, by changing the radical vowel ; while 
those of the other had to call in the help of an addi- 
tional syllable to achieve the same result. Though 
this terminology is somewhat fanciful, it is convenient, 
and has come into general use, and in this treatise 
will be ordinarily employed. The terms Regular and 
Irregular, as commonly employed in EngHsh gram- 
mars, are scientifically incorrect, because they blend 
in one class the strong verbs and the anomalous verbs 
of the weak conjugation. 

155. The syllable which is added to form the pret- 
erite of verbs of the weak conjugation is supposed, 
according to the generally received theory, to be the 
reduplicated perfect of a verb corresponding to the 
Enghsh verb do. In Anglo-Saxon the infinitive of 
this was don^ and its preterite, dide, the modern did : 
in Old High German the corresponding forms were 
tuon and teta. The reduplicated form of this verb is 
not preserved in its complete state in the preterites of 
any of the weak verbs in the Teutonic languages, 
except in Gothic ; and there it is not found in the 



3o6 English Language. 

singulai, but is found in the dual and plural. For 
illustration, the first person plural of the preterite of 
the Gothic verb haban, ^ to have,' is habai-dedum^ 
which is strictly have-did-we, equivalent to we did 
have. 

156. One further distinction also exists between 
the strong and the weak conjugation. This is in the 
passive participle. In the former, the suffix was -am 
usually weakened into -en, as seen still in driv-en, 
gott-en; for the latter it was -d or -/, as seen in 
love-d, brough-t. 

157. These are characteristics which English shares 
with all the other Teutonic languages. In the Anglo- 
Saxon the two conjugations above described, with 
all their distinctive peculiarities, were flourishing, and 
they have lasted down to the present time. But in 
the course of their history great changes have taken 
place in their relative size and importance. The most 
obvious and the most important fact is, that verbs of 
the strong conjugation have in Modern English be- 
come so few, and verbs of the w^eak conjugation so 
numerous, that the former, when compared with the 
latter, are apt to seem like exceptions to the general 
rule. 

158. The specific changes that have come over the 
two conjugations may be classified under the following 
heads : — 

1. Many strong verbs have disappeared altogether. 

2. Many strong verbs have passed over to the weak 
conjugation. 



Confiict of the Conjugations. 307 

3. A few weak verbs have passed over to the strong 
conjugation. 

4. A few verbs have a double set of forms — one 
belonging to the strong conjugation, and one to the 
weak. 

5. A few verbs have forms for different parts from 
both conjugations, a preterite, for example, being 
formed according to the one and a past participle 
according to the other. The details of all these 
changes will be given in the history of the losses and 
gains of the two conjugations. 

CONFLICT OF THE STRONG AND WEAK CONJUGATIONS. 

159. In the English of the Anglo-Saxon period the 
strong conjugation was divided into a number of sub- 
ordinate conjugations, the distinctions between which 
will be given later. The diminution in the number of 
verbs belonging to the strong conjugation — either by 
the loss to the language of the verbs themselves, or by 
their transition to the weak conjugation — is the mat- 
ter of most essential importance, bringing to light, as 
it does, the origin of the anomahes that are to be found 
in the existing inflection of the verb in our tongue. 

160. In the Anglo-Saxon there were about three 
hundred simple verbs of the strong conjugation ; in 
Modern English there are less than one hundred. The 
original number has accordingly suffered a diminution 
of more than two-thirds. But even this gives no ade- 
quate conception of the loss. As the number of form- 
ative prefixes was far larger in Anglo-Saxon than in 



3o8 English Langttage. 

Modern English/ the number of compound verbs 
created by the addition of these prefixes to the simple 
verb was necessarily much larger. Thus, in Anglo- 
Saxon more than a dozen new verbs were formed by 
the addition of different prefixes to standan. Of these, 
Modern English has retained in common use only with 
and under; so that, from this same verb, we now form 
but two verbs, withstand and U7iderstand, instead of 
the original dozen or more. The disproportion be- 
tween the earlier and the later form of the language, 
in respect to the number of strong verbs, is conse- 
quently much greater than would be implied by a loss 
of two-thirds. 

i6i. The causes of this loss are not hard to find. 
Even during the Anglo-Saxon period all verbs derived 
from nouns or other verbs were inflected according to 
the weak conjugation. Such was the case also with 
the few foreign verbs that were from time to time intro- 
duced. On the other hand, the strong conjugation 
received no accessions. Under any circumstances, 
therefore, the number of weak verbs would be con- 
stantly increasing ; while the strong, by simply remain- 
ing the same, would become a proportionally smaller 
fraction of the whole. It was an inevitable result of 
this, that the tendency would manifest itself at some 
time to inflect all verbs in the way that the majority 
of them were inflected. There is evidence that this 
was beginning to exert some influence in the language 
as it is found written before the Norman Conquest. 

1 See page 107. 



Conflict of the Conjugations. 309 

Many of the strong verbs have weak derivative verbs 
with precisely the same meaning alongside of them. 
In some cases also a weak derivative verb exists as the 
representative of a strong verb that had gone out of 
use in Anglo-Saxon, but has been preserved in other 
early Teutonic tongues. 

162. Two special agencies now came in to hasten 
the change in the relative numbers of the two conjuga- 
tions, and to widen vastly the disproportion already 
beginning to exist. The Norman Conquest made 
French the language of the cultivated classes, and left 
the native tongue to be used exclusively by the more 
uneducated portion of the community. The conser- 
vative influence of the literary language was in conse- 
quence no longer felt. As a result, confusion speedily 
sprang up between the two conjugations in the speech 
of ignorant men. In process of time, it became estab- 
lished by custom in the speech of all. The tendency 
to bring about uniformity at any cost ^ made itself pow- 
erfully felt in causing the inflection of verbs belonging 
to the smaller class to conform to that of the larger. 
This, as we have just seen, had been manifested in 
Anglo-Saxon, but after the Conquest its influence went 
on for a long while in a constantly increasing ratio. 
Hence men learned to say, for example, glided for 
glod, melted for molt^ carved for caj-f. The influence 
extended to verbs which still retain their strong in- 
flections : and even in the language of the fourteenth 
century we can find growed for grew, rised for rose^ 

1 See pages 145-147. 



3IO English Language, 

smiled for smote} and a number of other now unused 
weak preterites. 

163. This agency^ of itself^ even if not affected by 
other influences, would have largely reduced the num- 
ber of strong verbs. But great as it was, it was not to 
be compared with the effect produced by the influx 
of foreign words from the French, which, beginning 
toward the end of the thirteenth century, culminated 
in revolutionizing the vocabulary in the century fol- 
lowing. All the new verbs taken from that language 
were inflected according to the weak conjugation; 
and with their introduction dropped out of use a large 
number of Anglo-Saxon verbs. Many of these latter 
belonged to the strong conjugation, and their loss to 
it could never be replaced. The consequence was, 
that, at the beginning of the Middle English period, 
the whole number of strong verbs in the language had 
become comparatively small. Not only was this true, 
but it seemed as if, under the influence of the ten- 
dency to uniformity, they were about to disappear 
altogether. 

164. The transition of verbs of the strong conjuga- 
tion to that of the weak was arrested, however, as soon 
as the influence of literary models — the great con- 

1 In his garden growed swich a tree. 

Chaucer, Prol. to Wife of Bath's Tale, line 759. 

Thei ryseden eerly and worschipeden before the Lord. 

I Samuel \. 19 ( Purvey 's Recension). 

These ben the goddis that smytiden Egipt with al veniaunce in 
deseert, I Sa7nuelvf.'^ (Purvey's Recension)* 



Conflict of the Conjugations. 311 

servative agency in speech — began to make itself 
widely felt. The movement in that direction, which 
had been going on steadily since the Norman Con- 
quest, received its first check in the latter half of the 
fourteenth century with the rise of a native literature 
of a high order. From that time the tendency of the 
strong verbs to go over to the weak conjugation 
became less and less conspicuous. At the end of the 
Middle English period it had ceased entirely. On 
the other hand, there has been manifested during all 
periods, a tendency on the part of a number of weak 
verbs to assume strong forms — a tendency which, in 
the case of certain of them, has resulted in their par- 
tial or complete transfer to the strong conjugation. 

165. The history of the English verb is, therefore, 
from one point of view, the history of a conflict be- 
tween the weak and the strong conjugation, in which 
the former steadily tended for three centuries to become 
the one exclusively in use. The arrest of the move- 
ment in this direction, which overtook the verb in the 
fourteenth century, was the main cause that all our 
verbs are not now inflected according to the weak 
conjugation. Still it was inevitable that the action 
and reaction of the two conjugations upon each other, 
and the stoppage of the transition that had been going 
on from the strong to the weak inflection, should cause 
many apparently anomalous and irregular forms to 
appear in the language. Accordingly, a satisfactory 
account of the later history of the strong conjugation 
has been made a task of no slight difficulty, in conse- 



312 English Language. 

quence of the irregularities that exist in many verbs, 
and the seemingly capricious changes that have taken 
place in their inflections at various periods. In some 
of them there has been only a partial transfer. They 
have retained strong forms in equal authority with the 
weak, or even in greater. They have retained strong 
forms in poetry, while dropping them in prose ; or 
they have retained simply either a strong participial 
form, or a strong preterite form. These variations will 
be all exhibited and explained in the consideration of 
the two conjugations that follows. 

The Strong Conjugation. 

1 66. The variations and modifications that took 
place within the strong conjugation naturally involve 
the discussion of its preterites and past participles, 
not as distinguished from those of the weak conju- 
gation, but as distinguished from each other. The 
Anglo-Saxon strong verbs may be divided into seven 
classes, the first six of which include all the verbs that 
exhibit vowel-change proper; the seventh all that 
originally formed the preterite by reduplication (i6). 
Under each of these classes will be given those verbs 
belonging to it in Anglo-Saxon which have been pre- 
served with their strong inflections in Modern Enghsh. 
The principal parts given are, i, the infinitive ; 2 and 
3, the preterite singular (excluding the second person) 
and the preterite plural j 4, the passive participle. 
Modern English forms are placed under the Anglo- 
Saxon. 



The Strong ConJ7tgatio7t. 313 

STRONG VERBS. — ^ CLASS I. 

167. In the verbs of this class the variation of 
the radical vowel took place in the following order in 
Anglo-Saxon : — 

i; a, i; i. 

There were over fifty verbs belonging to the class in 
the early speech. Of this number the following are 
still inflected according to the strong conjugation : — 

1. (a) bide, bidan; bad, bidon; biden. 

-bide -bode -bode, -bided 

2. bite, bitan; bat, biton; biten. 

bite bit bitten, bit 

3. cleave (* to adhere '), clifan; claf, clifon; clifen. 

cleave clave cleaved 

4. drive, drifan; draf, drifon; drifen. 

drive drove driven 

5. ride, ridan; rad, ridon; riden. 

ride rode rid ridden, rid 

6. rise, risan; ras, rison; risen. 

rise rose risen 

7. shine, scinan; scan, scinon; scinen(?) 

shine shone shone 

8. shrive, scrifan; scraf, scrifon; scrifen. 

shrive shrove shriven 

9. slide, slidan; slad, slidon; sliden. 

slide slid slidden, slid 

10. smite, smitan; smat, smiton; smiten. 

smite smote smitten 

11. stride, stridan; strad, stridon; striden. 

stride strode stridden 



314 English Language. 



12. strike, 


strican; 


strac, stricon; 


stricen. 




strike 


struck 


struck^ stricken 


13. write, 


writan; 


writ, writon ; 


writen. 




write 


wrote writ 


written 



168. In the Modern English forms the variation 
of the radical vowel follows generally the following 
order : — 

i; o or i; i. 

Two forms of the preterite — one with the vowel 
representing the original preterite singular, the other 
with the vowel / of the preterite plural and past parti- 
ciple — have been more or less in use, side by side, 
since the beginning of the Middle English period. 
In general, however, there has been a preference for 
the forms containing 0, so much so that many of those 
containing / now seem vulgar. Still, Ben Jonson in his 
" English Grammar " gives to the verbs bide^ drive, 
rise, smite, and stride the preterites bid, d^^w, ris, smit, 
and st7i.d, as well as the forms now in use. On the 
other hand, he gave to slide the preterite slod as well 
as slid. Furthermore, bot or bote was in use up to the 
seventeenth century as a preterite of bite, 

169. Strike should be regularly inflected in Modern 
English as stroke and striken, and these forms it has 
had, among others, during its history. But in the 
sixteenth century, perhaps under the influence of 
verbs of Class III. (190), its preterite became struck. 
This form also made its way into the past participle, 
and there further developed the form strucken, occa- 



Strong Verbs, — Class I. 315 

sionally used. The original verb strican did not 
have its present sense in the early speech, but meant 
'to go,' 'to advance.' This signification is still found 
in the phrase " stricken in years," in which the origi- 
nal participle continues to be used. 

170. Four verbs of the foregoing list have also de- 
veloped weak forms alongside the strong ones. They 
are the following : — 



Infinitive. 


Preterite. 


Past Participle. 


-bide, 


-bided, 


-bided. 


cleave, 


cleaved, 


cleaved. 


shine. 


shined. 


shined. 


shrive. 


shrived. 


shrived. 



171. Bide exists in Modern English mainly in the 
compound abide. As a simple verb, it is little used 
outside of poetry, and is then regularly inflected 
according to the weak conjugation. The compound 
abide, however, prefers the strong conjugation, though 
the vowel of the preterite has made its way into the 
past participle, and abode — earlier aboden — is the 
common form for the now archaic abidden. This last 
form, too, occasionally dropped its final syllable and 
appeared as abid. 

172. Cleave is now more generally inflected accord- 
ing to the weak conjugation, and its original may, per- 
haps, be properly considered the weak Anglo-Saxon 
verb clifian, rather than the strong cllfan. Still the 
point is hard, and perhaps impossible to determine 
with certainty, from the fact that during the whole of 



3i6 English Language. 

its history its forms have been constantly confused v/ith 
those of the verb cleave^ ^ to split,' of Class II. (i8o). 
If from the strong verb cltfan^ we should expect clove 
as the preterite, and such it was occasionally in Early 
English. The more common form of the two, how- 
ever, was clave y which has been kept alive by its fre- 
quent occurrence in our version of the Bible. 

173. As early as the sixteenth century — perhaps 
much earlier — shine developed the weak preterite 
and past participle sJwied. It is very common during 
the first part of the Modern EngHsh period, and is 
still occasionally met with in literature. In the 
modern language, shone, however, is the much more 
usual form. The past participle shinen has hardly 
ever had a recognized existence, and its place is now 
taken by the preterite. Apparently at about the 
same time as shine, the verb shrive assumed also 
the inflections of the weak conjugation. From the 
sixteenth century, certainly, shrived has been fully 
as common as shrove and shriven, and perhapj 
more common. 

174. In addition to the thirteen verbs of this class 
that have come down from the Anglo-Saxon period, 
the following four have been added to it since that 
time : — 

Infinitive. Preterite. Past Participle. 

14. chide, chid, chidden. 

15. hide, hid, hidden. 

16. strive, strove, striven. 

17. thrive, throve, thriven. 



Strong Verbs. — Class I. 317 

175. The first two of these come from the Anglo- 
Saxon weak verbs : — 

cidan, cidde, cided, cidd. 

hydan, hydde, hyded, hydd. 

With the inflection chide ^ chid; hide, hid, these two 
verbs could be properly included among the irregular 
verbs of the weak conjugation, which shorten the 
vowel of the present in the preterite (284). But 
early in the sixteenth century, and probably somewhat 
before, both had created a new past participle by 
adding to the contracted preterite the termination -en, 
giving for that part of the verb the forms chidden and 
hidden, as well as chid and hid. This properly brings 
them under this class of strong verbs. Chide, after 
the analogy of ride and stride, formed also a preterite 
chode, perhaps even at an earlier date than the parti- 
ciple chidden ; but it has not maintained itself as has 
the latter. The modern language has developed the 
full weak preterite form chided along with chid. 

176. Strive and thrive — the first from the Old 
French, the second from the Old Norse — came into 
the language during the Old English period. Accord- 
ingly, we should have expected them to be inflected 
according to the weak conjugation. But from the 
very outset strive, probably after the analogy of drive, 
developed strong forms alongside of the weak ones. 
From the thirteenth century to the present time the 
strong and weak preterites strove and strived can be 
found side by side, as likewise the passive participles 



3i8 E^iglish La^tgnage. 

striven and strived. The language at present prefers 
the strong forms. Essentially the same thing may be 
said of thrive, in which, however, the strong forms 
seem to be the earlier ; at least they were more in use. 
177. Of the verbs originally belonging to this class 
the following have gone over to the weak conjuga- 
tion : — 



I. 


glide {gftdan). 


6. 


sneak {snican). 


2. 


gripe {grip an). 


7. 


spew {sptwan). 


3- 


sigh ificari). 


8. 


twit {aet-w'itan) , 


4. 

5- 


shp? {slip an), 
sHt? {sfitan). 


9. 


t wreathe J 



Here also it may be proper to include the two follow- 
ing words, which lasted down to the beginning of 
Modern EngHsh : — 

flite, from flitany * to scold.' 

sty, from sftgan, * to ascend.* 

178. To the list of verbs which once belonged to 
this class is to be added rive. This came into the 
language from the Old Norse, and exhibited in Early 
English the following inflection : ^ — 

Infinitive. Preterite Singular. Preterite Plural. Past Participle. 
rive(n), rof, riven, riven. 

Before the beginning of the Modern English period, 
the verb had gone over to the weak conjugation, leav- 
ing behind it, however, in good use, the strong past 
participle riven. 



Strong Verbs, — Class 11, 



319 



179. Wreathe seems to be nothing but a variant of 
writhe, but it was perhaps derived directly from the 
substantive wreath. The strong past participle writhen 
is archaic, and the corresponding wreaiJien belongs to 
the language of poetry. Twit, as is seen, is a com- 
pound, of which the final letter of the prefix has been 
retained with the verb. The simple verb w'ltan, ' to 
blame,' ^to find fault with,' which entered into the com- 
pound, did not die out till the Middle EngHsh period. 

STRONG VERBS. — CLASS H. 

180. In the Anglo-Saxon verbs of this class, the 
variation of the radical vowel was as follows : — 



eo^ 



ea, 



There were more than fifty of these verbs in Anglo- 
Saxon, of which only the following survive : — 



I. 


choose, 




ceosan; 


ceas, curon; 


coren. 








choose 


chose 


chosen 


2. 


cleave (* 


to split'). 


cleofan ; 


cleaf, clufon; 


clofen. 








cleave 


clove 


cloven 


3. 


fly, 




fleogan; 


fleah, flugon; 


flogen. 








fly 


Jlew 


flown 


4- 


freeze, 




freosan; 


freas fruron ; 


froren. 








freeze 


froze 


frozen 


5- 


seethe. 




seo'San; 


sea's, sudon; 


soden. 








seethe 


sod 


sodden 


6. 


shoot. 




sceotan; 


sceat scuton; 


scoten. 



shoot 



shot 



shot. 



320 English Language. 

i8i. A very marked peculiarity in the history of 
this class is the extent of the variation which the forms 
have undergone. The modern ones, in consequence, 
can hardly be said in most cases to be derived from 
the ones found in Anglo-Saxon. The following most 
important of these variations will be noted : — 

182. (i) The change of s to r (14). This took 
place in certain forms of the original verb, but has now 
been abandoned. In consequence, coren has been 
replaced by chosen^ and froren by frozen. Fro7'en or 
frore is still in poetic use, however, as an adjective.-^ 
The same thing can be said of lorn and forlorn, 
originally past participles of leosan and forleosan. 
Leosan, ' to lose,' a verb of this class, which has gone 
over to the weak conjugation, was apparently known to 
Anglo-Saxon only in compounds. In Early English, 
however, it appears, and frequently presents the fol- 
lowing inflection : — 

lesen; les, lore(n); lor(e)n. 

An Anglo-Saxon weak verb losian, losode, ' to be 
lost,' may have had some influence on the modern 
form, but this is very doubtful. 

183. (2) The extent to which the vowel of the 
past participle made its way into the preterite. The 

1 My hart-blood is wel mghfrorne, I feele. 

Spenser, Shepheards Calender, February. 

The parching air 
Burns y^i?r^, and cold performs the effect of fire. 

Milton, Paradise Lost, ii. 595. 



Strong Verbs. — Class II. 321 

Early English preterites dies, cllf^frls^ seth, and shet 
have been uniformly given up for forms containing 0. 
This tendency began to show itself in the Old EngHsh 
period. The only exception to the universality of 
this rule I'sfly, 

184. (3) The fact that two of these words, choose 
and shoot, have replaced, with forms containing oo, the 
regularly descended forms of the infinitive, chese{ii) 
and shete{ii), A similar statement can be made of 
the originally strong verb of this class, lese{ii), which 
has given place to lose, 

185. In regard to individual words, cleave, con- 
stantly confounded with cleave of Class I. (167), has 
had likewise the preterite clave. It also developed in 
the Old English period the regular weak form cleaved, 
and in the Middle English the irregular weak form 
cleft. This latter is still very common. Seethe has 
developed also the weak form seethed. This appar- 
ently did not come into much, if any, use till the 
Modern English period, but it has now generally taken 
the place of the strong forms, which seem in conse- 
quence somewhat archaic. Still, the word itself is 
employed comparatively httle. The forms oi fleogan, 
' to fly,' were from the outset confused with those of 
fleohan, ' to flee ' ; and this is doubtless one of- the 
reasons why the principal parts of the former verb 
have had an exceptional development of their own. 
It remains to be said that beodan, ^ to ofl'er,' of this 
class, has been confounded with biddan, ' to ask,' of 
Class v., as will be pointed out later (217). 



322 English Language, 

1 86. The following verbs of this class have gone 
over to the weak conjugation. The first list contains 
the words which had originally "eo in the infinitive, the 
second u, 

1. brew (b^'eozvan), 6. float, fleet (^fleotari), 

2. chew {ceowaTi). 7. lie, *to deceive' (Jeogan), 

3. creep {creopan), 8. lose (^-leosa^i). 

4. crowd (^creodan), 9. rue (Jireowan). 

5. Rqq (Jleon). 10. STpvout (^spreotafifSpru^an). 

11. bow {bugan), 14. shove {scufa^i). 

12. brook (brucan). 15. suck? {sucan). 

13. rout, * to snore ' (/^ri//^;^) . 16. 'ava^l {supa^t). 

To these may be added the following dialectic or archaic 
words, which appear still occasionally in the literary 
speech : — 

dree, from dreogan, * to suffer.' 

lout, from lutan, ' to bow.' ^ 

187. The Anglo-Saxon verb fleotan was regularly 
represented in Middle English by the form flete^ and 
the form flote^ though occurring, does not occur often. 
The spelling of the Modern English verb may have 
been affected by the substantive flota, ^a vessel,' 
though this is doubtful. Creep, another one of these 
verbs, has the strong preterite and participle crope and 
cropen in occasional use early in the Modern English 

1 For example, the Scotch phrase, To dree one's weird, " to endure 
one's fate." Also 

He faire the knight sahited, louting low. 

Spenser, FaerU Queene, I. i. 30. 



Strong Verbs. — Class III. 323 

period, and dialectically it continues to exist until this 
day. 

188. Some of the Anglo-Saxon verbs of this class 
have weak forms alongside of the strong ones, and 
from either one of these the modern weak verb may 
have been derived. Thus reek may have descended 
from the strong verb rlocan, ^ to smoke, exhale,' or 
from the weak i^lcan, with the same meaning. One 
of the strong verbs of this class, dufan, did not per- 
petuate itself; but the weak collateral verb dyfan 
survives in the word dive. This, in the language of 
common life, has of late exhibited a tendency to as- 
sume in the preterite the form dove^ after the analogy 
of drive of Class I. From colloquial speech it has nat- 
urally now and then made its way into Hterature^ as, for 
example : — 

Straight into the river Kwasind 
' Plunged as if he were an otter, 

Dove as if he were a beaver. 
Longfellow, Hiawatha^ vii. (original edition). 

STRONG VERBS. — CLASS III. 

189. .The verbs in this class fall into three divisions 
according to the following schemes of vowel-varia- 
tion : — 



I. 


i; 


a(o), 


u; 


2. 


e; 


ea, 


u; 


3- 


eo; 


ea, 


u; 



Besides these there were a few verbs in Anglo- 



324 



English Language. 



Saxon which underwent special variations of their own. 
These are indicated in the following scheme : — 



e; 


se, 


i; 


se. 


u; 


ea, 



190. There were between seventy-five and eighty 

verbs in the whole class. The following twenty-two 
found in Modern EngHsh represent the members of 
the first subdivision : — 

1. bind, bindan; band, bundon; bunden. 

bind bound bound 

2. climb, climban; clamb, clumbon; clumben. 

climb clomb clof?tb 

3. clings^ clingan; clang, clungon; clungen. 

cling clung clung 

4. drink, drincan; dranc, druncon; druncen. 

drink drank drunk drunk 

5. find, findan; fand, fundon; funden. 

find found found 



6. 


-gin, 


-gmnan; 


-gan. 


-gunnon; 


-gunnen. 






-gin 


-gan 


-gun 


-gun 


7- 


grind, 


grindan; 


grand. 


grundon; 


grunden. 






grind 


ground 


ground 


8. 


run, 


rinnan; 


ran, 


runnon; 


runnen. 






run 


ran 




run 


9- 


shrink. 


scrincan; 


scranc, 


scruncon; 


scruncen. 






sJu'ink 


shra7ik 


shrunk 


shrunk 


10. 


sing, 


singan ; 


sang. 


sungon; 


sungen. 






sing 


sang 


stmg 


SU7lg 



1 The Anglo-Saxon cliJtgan meant ' to shrink/ and winnan ' to 
labor.' 



\ 



i 



Strong Verbs, — Class III. 325 

11. sink, sincan; sane, suncon; suncen. 

sink sank sunk sunk 

12. sling, slingan; slang, slungon; slungen. 

sling slung slung 

13. slink, slincan; slanc, sluncon; sluncen. 

slink slank slunk slunk 

14. spin, spinnan; span, spunnon; spunnen. 

spin spun spun 

15. spring, springan; sprang, sprungon; sprungen. 

spring sprang sprung sprung 

16. sting, stingan; stang, stungon; stungen. 

sting stung stung 

17. stink, stincan; stanc, stuncon; stuncen. 

stink stank stunk stunk 

18. swim, swimman; swam, swummon; swummen. 

swim swam swum swum 

19. swing, swingan; swang, swungon; swungen. 

swing swung swung 

2.Q. win,i winnan; wan, wunnon; wunnen. 

win won won 

21. wind, windan; wand, wundon; wunden. 

wind wound zvound 

22. wring, wringan; wrang, wrungon; wrungen. 

wring wrung wrung 

The two following are the sole representatives now 
existing of the second and third subdivisions : — 

23. help, helpan; healp, hulpon; holpen. 

help holp holpen 

24. fight, feohtan; feaht, fuhton; fohten. 

fight fought fought 

1 See note, preceding page. 



^26 English Language, 

191. 'In Modern English the variation of the radi- 
cal vowel has generally been according to the following 
scheme : — 

i; a or u; u. 

But besides the cases of individual verbs to be con- 
sidered separately, those which ended in -nd — bmd, 
find, grind, 2ind wind — have invariably lengthened in 
the literary language the short vowel of the preterite 
and past participle into the diphthong ou. These same 
verbs have likewise lengthened the vowel of the infini- 
tive and the present tense, which is long only by po- 
sition, into the diphthongal sound of /, as has also 
c/iml^, 

192. This class of strong verbs received during the 
Old English period the two verbs now inflected as 
follows : — 

25. fling; flung; flung. 

26. ring; rang or rung; rung. 

193. F/i7ig is a word that came into our tongue 
from the Norse. Since its introduction it has never 
been inflected otherwise than according to the strong 
conjugation. In Early English it had also the preterite 
fla7ig. Ring is from the weak Anglo-Saxon verb 
hringan, hringde. Like fling, it doubtless assumed the 
strong inflection after the analogy of sing, springy and 
similar words. It does not appear to have shown 
weak forms after the Anglo-Saxon period. 

194. During the Modern EngHsh period strong in- 
flections have been developed by three verbs, which 



\ 



Strong Verbs, — Class III. 327 

may be assigned most appropriately to this class. They 
are the following : — 



27. 


dig; 


dug; 


dug. 


28. 


stick; 


stuck ; 


stuck. 


29. 


string; 


strung; 


strung. 



195. Of these words dig is of somewhat uncertain 
origin, though the derivation can perhaps be ascribed 
reasonably, if remotely, to Anglo-Saxon dlcian, dtcode, 
^ to make a dike, mound, or ditch.' In the form in 
which it now appears it does not seem, however, to 
have been used before the fourteenth century. It had 
then, and for several centuries following, the weak 
preterite and past participle digged. The strong form, 
dug, did not become common, if, indeed, it was known 
at all, until the eighteenth century. It cannot be 
found in the authorized version of the Bible, in Shak- 
speare, or in the poetry of Milton. In all of these the 
preterite was digged. This latter form has now become 
archaic. 

196. Sfiek is derived directly from the weak Anglo- 
Saxon verb stieian, stieode, having the meaning of ' to 
adhere.' The form stiked for the preterite and past 
participle is common in the literary language of the 
fourteenth century ; but, in the sixteenth, stuek had 
become instead the regular form. The transition 
doubtless took place during the Middle English period. 
There was an Early Enghsh strong verb, steken, ^to 
pierce,' which has also a right to be considered as 
one of the originals of this verb. It was inflected as 
follows : — 



328 English Language. 

steke(n); stak, stok; steken, stoken. 

This, which would strictly belong to Class V., had no 
original in Anglo-Saxon. 

197. String is a verb that has apparently been 
formed from the noun ' string/ in Anglo-Saxon, streng. 
It does not appear to have been known before the 
sixteenth century, though it would be venturesome to 
assert that it had not a much earlier existence. If the 
verb is recent, as seems most probable, it is likely that 
from the beginning of its formation it was inflected 
string, strung^ strung, according to the strong conju- 
gation, after the analogy of swing, swung; sting, stung; 
and others. 

198. Of the verbs in the foregoing list, two — 
cli^nb and help — have regularly gone over to the weak 
conjugation, and form the preterites and past partici- 
ples climbed and helped. Their strong forms are either 
archaic, poetic, or dialectic. The transition took place 
during the Middle Enghsh period. What, on the 
whole, were the common early strong forms for climb 
were as follows : — 

climbe(n); clamb, clombe(n); clumben. 

These are responsible for several of the forms still in 
use in dialects and among the uneducated. 

199. Ding, a word but now little used, was not 
known to Anglo-Saxon at all, but in Early English 
appeared with the following inflection : — 

dinge(n); dang, dungen; dungen. 



Strong Verbs, — Class III. 329 

It now follows usually the weak conjugation, but also 
exhibits the strong preterite and past participle dung, 

200. The Early English inflection of run was as 
follows : — 

rinne(n) ^ ran^ runnen^ runnen-| 

renne(n) J ' ron/' ronnen/ ' ronneni 

In the case of this verb the vowel of the preterite 
plural and past participle has made its way into the 
infinitive and present tense. This took place during 
the Middle EngHsh period. The preterite run was 
at one time found not unfrequently in literature, and 
is still in use among the uneducated (365). 

201. The Anglo-Saxon strong verb wmdan, ^ to 
move in a winding course/ has been transmitted in 
this sense to Modern Enghsh. But there is another 
English verb, wmd, ' to sound by blowing,' derived 
from the noun 'wind.' This should strictly be in- 
flected according to the weak conjugation, and in 
certain senses is so. But the forms of the two verbs 
have to some extent acted upon each other. In 
consequence, the first has occasionally been inflected 
according to the weak conjugation; but more often 
the second according to the strong. Thus, such a 
usage as ''the way winded over the hill " can some- 
times be met with ; while the corresponding usage 
" he wound his horn " is even common. It is further 
to be added that in the sense just given, the derivative 
verb wind not only assumes at times the inflection 
of the strong verb, but invariably its pronunciation ; 



330 English Language, 

whereas in other of its significations, as when we sa)? 
"the horse is winded/' the verb has not only the 
weak form invariably, but is pronounced not wind 
but wind, 

202. There is one pecuHarity that marks in partic- 
ular the verbs of this class. This is that in ordinary 
usage the original ending -en of the past participle 
has been dropped from all of them. It is true that in 
poetry, and in certain special phrases, bounden, drunken, 
shrtifiken, sunken^ and foughten occasionally appear. 
But these, when found, have almost invariably lost the 
participial sense, and are simply adjectives. This is 
the only class of strong verbs which is characterized 
throughout by this peculiarity. Holpe?i, from help, 
would indeed be strictly an exception to this rule ; 
but here again the strong forms of this verb belong 
to poetry. 

203. Another thing noticeable about this class is 
that with the exception oi beornan, ^ to burn,^ — which 
had a peculiar history of its own, — not one of the 
verbs of the first subdivision (189) ever went entirely 
over to the weak conjugation. On the other hand, all 
the verbs that survived of the other subdivisions did 
so with the exceptions of help ^n^ fight. The follow- 
ing are .the verbs which in Modern English have aban- 
doned their strong forms : — 

1. bell, * to roar' {bellan), 5. yell {giellan), 

2. delve {delfafi), 6. yelp {gielpan), 

3. melt {ineltafi), 7. yield {gieldan). 

4. swell (siuellan). 



Strong Verbs. — Class IV. 331 

8. bark (beorcaft). ii. smart {smeortan), 

9. burn (beornan). 12. starve {^steorfan). 

ID. C2iXYQ {ceorfan). 13. swerve ? (jwf^r/^;/,* to polish'). 

14. warp (zveorpan) , 

15. braid {bregdan), 18. spurn {spurnan), 

16. burst (berstan). 19. thresh (perscan), 

17. mourn (jnurnan). 

204. One of these verbs, i'ze^^?//, still shows frequently 
the strong past participle swollen, but in general that 
form is used as an adjective. Burs fen, carven, and 
molten are also adjectives which owe their existence 
to the original past participles of burst, carve, and 
melt, and at times are treated as participles in poetry. 
Starven, 'starved,' and yolden, 'yielded,' lasted down 
also to the beginning of the Modern English period. 
In truth, the forms of several of these verbs occasion- 
ally appear in the poetry of the early period of Modern 
EngUsh, not only because the language of poetry nat- 
urally preserves archaic forms, but because there was 
at that time a constant effort to revive forms gone out 
of ordinary use. For example, 7nolt, an obsolete pret- 
erite, is used by Sackville in the following lines in the 
*' Induction to the Mirror for Magistrates " : — 

My heart so molt to see his grief so great 
As feelingly, methought, it dropt away. 

STRONG VERBS. — CLASS IV. 

205. In Anglo-Saxon the vowel-variation was gen- 
erally according to the following scheme ; — 



332 



English Language. 



This class contained in the early speech about ten 
verbs. The following survive : — 



I. 


bear, 


beran ; 


bger, baeron ; 


boren. 






bear 


bore 


born{e) 


2. 


break, 


brecan; 


brsec, brsecon ; 


brocen. 






break 


broke 


broke {n) 


3. 


come, 


cuman ; 


com, comon ; 


cumen. 






coirte 


came 


come 


4. 


shear, 


scieran ; 


scear, scearon ; 


scoren. 






shear 


shore 


shorn 


5- 


steal, 


stelan ; 


stael, stselon ; 


stolen. 






steal 


stole 


stoten 


6. 


tear. 


teran ; 


tser, tseron ; 


toren. 






tear 


tore 


torn 



206. With the exception of cu7nan — which is pecul- 
iarly irregular — the short vowel of the infinitive and 
the present tense of all these verbs has been length- 
ened in their Modern English representatives. The 
Early English preterites were based upon their cor- 
responding Anglo-Saxon forms, and all exhibited the 
vowel a. But during the Middle English period — 
and in the case of some verbs perhaps earlier -— this 
vowel was displaced by the of the past participle. 
Hence the earlier preterites l^are, i^rake, shar(e), 
stale, and tare gave way to the forms now existing. 
But as certain of them — -^^r^, brake, and tare par- 
ticularly — maintained themselves in literature, at the 
beginning of the Modern English period, alongside 
of bore, broke, and tore, they have never fallen into 



Strong Verbs. — Class TV, 333 

absolute disuse. They are met with occasionally, 
particularly in poetry, and in any style intentionally 
made archaic. 

207. The past participles of these verbs generally 
retain the final -n in Modern English. In colloquial 
usage, however, bi'oke and stole are found alongside 
of broken and stolen^ and these abbreviated forms 
have occasionally made their appearance in hterature. 

208. Come has differed from the other verbs of 
this class during the whole period of its history. The 
preterite com{e^ was preserved in the South, but was 
early replaced by cam{e) in the North. This latter 
form made its way into the Midland. In the litera- 
ture of the beginning of the Middle English period 
it is found constantly in the WycHffite version of the 
Scriptures, and not unfrequently in Chaucer, Gower, 
and Langland. After the fourteenth century it became 
the established form, though the older preterite come 
is still in use among the uneducated, and can some- 
times be found somewhat late in the literary speech. 
The past participle of this verb retained the final -n 
for a long period. Comen, in fact, did not die out 
till the seventeenth century. 

209. Not one of these verbs has gone completely 
over to the weak conjugation. Shear has developed 
the weak preterite and participle, sheared ; but the 
strong forms still survive. If sheared is more common 
in the preterite than shore, in the past participle shorn 
is more common than sheared. 

210. In addition to the six original verbs of this 



334 English Language, 

class that have survived, Modern English has received 
another. This is wear, which is derived from the 
Anglo-Saxon weak verb werian ; werede ; wered, 
Down to the fifteenth century certainly, and^ perhaps, 
to the sixteenth, it was inflected as follows : — ■ 

weren, werede, wered. 

So it always appears in Chaucer. But during the 
latter part of the Middle English period, it abandoned 
its strictly correct forms and replaced them by those 
of the strong conjugation, doubtless after the analogy 
of words like bear and tear. At the beginning of the 
Modern English period, it regularly presented the 
following as its principal parts : — 

7. wear; ware or wore; worn. 

STRONG VERBS. — CLASS V. 

211. This class is closely aUied to the preceding, 
and is sometimes joined with it. The vowel- change is 
the same with the exception of the past participle, and 
is, in general, according to the following scheme : — 

e; cQf ZQf e. 

Four verbs, however, that have survived have / in 
the infinitive and present tense, and there are other 
variations the origin of which it is unnecessary to enter 
into here. 

212. Nearly thirty verbs belonged to this class in 
Anglo-Saxon. Of these the following survive : — 



Strong Verbs. — Class V. 



335 



I. 


bid, 


biddan; 


b3ed, 




baedon; 


beden. 






bid 




bad{^e), bid 


bidden, bid 


2. 


eat, 


etan; 


^t. 




Deton; 


eten. 






eat 




ate, eat 


eaten, eat 


3. 


get, 


gietan; 

get 


geat, 


got 


geaton; - 


gieten. 
gotten, got 


4. 


give, 


giefan; 

give 


geaf, 


gave 


geafon; 


giefen. 

given 


5- 


lie, 


licgan; 
lie 


l9eg, 


lay 


l^gon; 


legen. 
lain 


6. 


see. 


seon; 
see 


seah. 


saw 


sawon; 


sewen. 
seen 


7. 


sit. 


sittan; 
sit 


sset, 


sat 


sseton; 


seten. 
sat 


8. 


speak, 


specan; 1 

speak 


spaec. 


spoke 


spsecon; 


specen. 

spoken 


9. 


tread, 


tredan; 


trsed, 




trsedon; 


treden. 






tread 




trod{e) 


trodden 


10. 


weave. 


wefan; 
weave 


vi^aef, 


wove 


vi^aefon; 


wefen. 
woven 



213. In the history of these words it will be ob- 
served that the normal preterites gat^ spake, trad, and 
waf have been displaced in Modern EngHsh by got, 
spoke, trod{e), and wove. The corresponding parti- 
ciples have also become gotten or got, spoken, trodden, 
and woven. In all these cases the forms with o had 
made their appearance in the language as early as the 
fourteenth century. In the writings of that time even 
^oven is a past participle oijive, ^give,' and sometimes 

1 specan is late Anglo-Saxon ; the earlier form was sprecan. 



336 English Language. 

can be found as a preterite plural, though its use was 
not perpetuated in either case. 

214. The origin of these forms is somewhat uncer- 
tain. It is probable that was first introduced into 
the past participle after the analogy of the participles 
of the preceding class, with which this one is so closely 
connected. From the past participle these forms seem 
then to have made their way into the preterite. After 
the fourteenth century they became common, and were 
finally regarded as the standard forms. Still gat and 
spake have never died out, though they are now 
archaic. 

215. Certain of the verbs of this class have had a 
somewhat peculiar history. The strong intransitive 
verb lie has been constantly confused through all the 
periods of Modern Enghsh with the weak transitive 
verb lay, and this error exhibits itself occasionally in 
literature.-^ The same is true, at least as regards the 
language of the uneducated, of the strong verb sit, 
which is frequently confounded with the weak verb set. 
More remarkable, perhaps, than either is see, which in 
the language of low life has the same form see as its 
preterite, instead of saw. This goes back to the 



1 E.g. But let not a man trust his victorie over his nature too 
farre ; for nature will lay buried a great time, and yet revive upon 
the occasion of temptation. — BACON, Essays {Of Nature in Man). 

Thou . . . send'st him shivering in thy playful spray 

And dashest him again to earth : — there let him lay. 

Byron, Childe Harold, iv. st. 180. 



Strong Verbs. — Class V. 337 

Middle English period, and may be much earher. It 
has sometimes made its way into literature.^ 

216. In the written language, the past participle 
usually retains the original final -n, and invariably so in 
the case oi give, He, and see. In colloquial speech this 
-n is sometimes dropped. The abbreviated participial 
forms bid, eat, spoke, trod, and wove have been used 
with varying degrees of frequency at different periods 
of Modern Enghsh ; and, generally speaking, the 
shorter form got has been much more common, both 
in speech and in writing, than the fuller gotten. The 
opposite is the fact, however, in the case of the com- 
pound forget, where forgotten is preferred to forgot. 
The preterite has sometimes made its way into the 
past participle. Bade so used is not uncommon, and 
sat or sate is now the regular form for which sitten — 
analogous to bidden — was once employed. 

217. Bid really represents two Anglo-Saxon strong 
verbs which have been hopelessly confused both as 
regards inflection and meaning. The forms here found 
are, on the whole, the nearest to biddan, which means 
^ to ask, invite, pray,' and in Early Enghsh would be 
represented by the following inflection : — 

bidde(n); bad, beden; beden. 

1 This page . . c of very speciall frendshippe se his tyme to set 
him forwarde. — SiR THOMAS MORE, Richard III., page 519. 

Who see a master of mine? — GREENE, George-a-Gree7ie, ed. 
1861, page 262. 

About noon set sail, in our way I see many barks and masts. — 
Pepys'S Diary, April 8, 1660. 

Be sure you say you see him hurt himself. — PORTER. The Vil- 
lain, ed. 1670, page 67. 



338 English Language. 

The other verb is beodan, which belongs to Class 
II. (185). It means ^to offer, announce, command,' 
and in Anglo-Saxon and Early EngUsh presents prop- 
erly the following forms : — 

beodan; bead, budon; . boden. 

, bede(n); bed, buden; boden. 

The forms of these verbs were early confounded with 
one another, and to a great extent used interchange- 
ably. Confusion of meaning naturally followed con- 
fusion of form. A striking result of this is seen in 
the compound forbid, which represents, so far as 
meaning is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon for-blodan, 
while its forms are mainly due to biddan, 

218. Weave was at one period frequently inflected 
according to the weak conjugation, and even now it 
has at times the preterite and past participle weaved. 
On the other hand, to this class may be assigned the 
word spit, on the strength of an inflection it has occa- 
sionally had. Strictly it is a weak verb (274) and 
based upon a weak original ; yet during its history it 
has been sometimes inflected as follows : — 

II. spit; spat; spitten. 

219. To this class belong also two verbs, one of 
which was originally defective, the other has become 
so. The first of these is 7£jesan, which has furnished 
the preterite of the substantive verb (442). The sec- 
ond had a full inflection in Anglo-Saxon. Its prin- 
cipal parts were as follows : — 

cwetSan; cwse^, cwsedon; cvveden. 



Strong Verbs, — Class VI. 339 

In the fourteenth century it was rare that any other 
part of this verb beside the preterite was used ; but 
the preterite itself was then very common. By that 
time the forms with e, cwed and cweden, had been 
generally abandoned for those with 0. The verb then 
appeared indifferently with the consonant of the 
singular or of the plural, as qitoth or quod ; but 
the former became the prevalent form before the 
end of the Middle Enghsh period. The compound 
be-queathe has retained the full verbal inflection, but 
has passed entirely over to the weak conjugation. 
The same change characterizes fi^et, ' to chafe, dis- 
turb,' which is a compound of eat^ and had for its 
first sense ' to devour.' The Anglo-Saxon verb is 
f retail; and the old strong past participle fretten 
lasted down to the Modern English period. 

220. The following verbs originally belonging to 
this class have gone over to the weak conjugation : — 

1. fret (^fretan), 4. be-queathe {be-cwe^an). 

2. knead (^atedan). 5. weigh {wegmi), 

3. mete (jnetaft). 6. wreak (wrecan). 

STRONG VERBS. — CLASS VI. 

221. In the verbs of this class the following is the 
regular variation of the radical vowel in Anglo-Saxon :-^ 

a; o, o; a. 

There were over thirty verbs belonging to this class 
in the early tongue. The following survive with the 
strong inflection : — 



340 



English Language. 



I. 


draw, 


dragan; 


drog, drogon; 


dragen. 






draw 


drew 


drawn 


2. 


heave, 


hebban; 


hof, hofon; 


hafen. 






heave 


hove 


hove 


3. 


(for) sake. 


sacan; 


soc, socon; 


sacen. 






-sake 


-sook 


-saken 


4. 


shake, 


scacan; 


scoc, scocon; 


scacen. 






shake 


shook 


shaken 


5- 


slay, 


slean; 


sloh, slogon; 


slagen. 






slay 


slew 


slaht 


6. 


stand. 


standan; 


stod, stodon; 


standen. 






stand 


stood 


stood 


7- 


swear. 


swerian; 


swor, sworon; 


swor en. 






swear 


swore 


sworn 


8. 


take. 


tacan; 


toe, tocon; 


tacen. 






take 


took 


taken 


9. 


wake, 


-wacan ; 


woe, woeon; 


wacen. 






wake 


woke 


woke 



222. To this class may be best referred two verbs 
which in Modern English are inflected according to 
the strong conjugation as well as the weak. They 
are the following : — 



10. reeve; 

11. stave; 



rove; 

stove; 



rove. 

stove. 



The first of these is a technical naval word. Its 
derivation is uncertain, and it probably belongs ex- 
clusively to Modern English. The second, stave, is 
pretty certainly a modern verb, and is doubtless formed 
directly from the substantive stave or staff. Before 



SU'ong Verbs. — Class VI . 341 

the present century, certainly, the weak form staved 
was much more common than the corresponding form 
stove, 

223. In a number of verbs of this class the preterite 
was used as the past participle in the early period of 
Modern English. Forsook, shook, and took, with its 
compounds mistook and undertook, were at one time 
very commonly used with have to form the perfect 
tense (314). In the case of stand this has become 
the estabhshed rule with the preterite stood, which 
has supplanted entirely the etymologically correct 
form stonden, * It will be further noticed that this 
verb stand loses in the preterite its n, 

224. A statement somewhat similar about the per- 
manent intrusion of the preterite into the past parti- 
ciple can be made of the verb wake, which has lost its 
original past participle waken. The weak form waked 
is more common, however, in that part of the verb 
than the strong preterite form woke. But this is not 
true of the compound awake, in which the participle 
awoke, taken from the preterite, stands side by side 
in usage with awaked. In this verb the original parti- 
ciple awaken has disappeared from the inflection, and, 
with its final -ii dropped, survives now only as an 
adjective. 

225. In the case of two of these verbs, draw and 
slay, the original preterites droh, drow, and sloh, slow, 
have been replaced by forms with the vowel e. These 
made their appearance in the Old English period. It 
is hard to say what influences brought about this 



342 English Language. 

change. In the case of draw^ it may have been after 
the analogy of knaw, a common variant form of 

k7lOW. 

226. The verb heave has the weak inflection as 
well as -the strong. The weak forms showed them- 
selves indeed towards the end of the Anglo-Saxon 
period^ and have been in constant use ever since. 
The preterite hove is more common than the past 
participle of the same form. Into the latter the vowel 
of the former had early intruded, giving us hove7i 
instead of haven. But to both, though m.ore espe- 
cially to the past participle, the language, at least the 
literary language, prefers in most cases heaved. 

227. Though a few verbs such as bide and gin are 
rarely to be met with in Modern English save as com- 
pounded, the \\oxdL forsake — from/^r and sacan, 'to 
contend,' — is the single instance of the preservation 
in our language of a compound in which the simple 
verb has perished entirely. 

228. The verb sweai^ of this class has been marked 
by certain irregularities which belonged to it from the 
earhest time. In particular, during the IMiddle Eng- 
hsh period, it developed the preterite sware along 
with the regularly formed sivore. This was probably 
done under the influence of the earher preterites bare 
and tare of the fourth class (206). The preterite 
sware was once common, being in fact the only form 
found in our version of the Bible. It is still in ex- 
istence, though confined usually to poetry or to the 
designedly archaic style. 



Strong Verbs, — Class VI, 343 

229. There is some doubt whether the simple verb 
tacan, ' to take/ existed in Anglo-Saxon, though verbs 
compounded of it are found. The same statement is 
true of wacan, though of this word the preterite and 
past participle certainly occur. The modern wake 
has behind it both a strong and a weak verb, and it 
has had both strong and weak forms during the whole 
period of its history. But the latter have until lately 
been generally preferred. In fact, the strong form 
woke almost disappeared for several centuries from 
the language of literature, — so much so that it was 
not even recognized until lately in our dictionaries. 
It has now, however, become full as common as the 
weak form waked (247). 

230. Most of the Anglo-Saxon verbs belonging to 
this class have been preserved in Modern English, 
though the large majority of them have gone over 
entirely or partially to the weak conjugation. The 
following is the list of these : — 



I. 


ache {acan). 


9- 


laugh (Jiliehhan). 


2. 


bake {bacan). 


10. 


scathe {scet^an). 


3. 


drag ? {dragan). 


II. 


shape {scieppan). 


4. 


fare {far an). 


12. 


shave {scafan). 


5. 


flay {flean). 


13. 


step {steppaii). 


6. 


gnaw {gnagan). 


14. 


wade {wadati). 


7- 


grave {grafan). 


15- 


wash {was can). 


8. 


lade {hladan). 


16. 


wax {weaxan). 



Drag is particularly doubtful; instead of being a 
variant of draw, it may have owed its origin to a 
Norse verb of the same meaning. 



344 English Language. 

231. A very marked peculiarity of all these verbi 
which have gone over to the weak conjugation is the 
extent to which they have retained their strong parti- 
cipial forms. Grave, lade, shape, and shave have still 
in good use the original participles graven, laden, 
shapen, and shaven. Shapen is, to be sure, somewhat 
archaic, and the same may be said of gnawn, which 
in the early period of Modern English occasionally 
appears. But even the obsolete or archaic participles 
baken, flam, zuashen, and waxeii lasted down to a late 
period, usually, of course, in the sense of adjectives. 

232. A variant form of lade is load, which had also 
the past participle loaden, now comparatively little used. 
Load may have come from the Anglo-Saxon verb of 
which lade is the modern representative, but it is more 
probably from the noun load, itself a derivative of the 
primitive verb. In the latter case, it would be pre- 
cisely like the verb loan derived from the noun spelled 
the same way, and thereby furnishing a variant form 
to lene^ which, during the Middle English period, was 
corrupted into lend by the addition of a d, 

STRONG VERBS. CLASS VII. 

233. This includes, the whole body of verbs still 
existing in Anglo-Saxon, which in the primitive Teu- 
tonic had been subject to reduplication (16). The 
number in our early speech was somewhat over fifty. 
In all of them the contraction of the reduplicating and 
radical syllables gave usually 1 or 'eo as the vowel to 
both numbers of the preterite (17). 



Stro7to; Verbs, — Class VII . 



345 



234. Of these fifty and more verbs the following 
still survive as members of the strong conjugation : — 



I. beat, 



beatan; beot, beoton; beaten. 





beat 


beat 


beaten^ beat 


2. blow (of 


blawan; 


bleow, bleowon; 


blawen. 


wind, etc.). 


blozv 


bleiv 


blown 


3. blow ('to 


bio wan; 


bleow, bleowon; 


blowen. 


bloom '), 


blow 


blew 


blown 


4. crow, 


crawan; 


creow, creowon; 


crawen. 




crow 


crew 


crowed 


5. fall, 


feallan; 


feoll, feoUon; 


feallen. 




fall 


fell 


fallen 


6. grow, 


growan ; 


greow, greowon; 


growen. 




grow 


grew 


grown 


7. hang, 


hon; 


heng, hengon ; 


hangen. 




hang 


hung 


hung 


8. hold, 


healdan; 


heold, heoldon; 


healden. 




hold 


held 


held^ holden 


9. know, 


cnawan; 


cneow, cneowon ; 


cnawen. 




know 


knew 


known 


:o. throw. 


>rawan; 


l^reow, J>reowon; 


}?rawen. 




throw 


threw 


thrown 



235. Blow, from blawan, has sometimes weak forms 
as well as the regular strong ones, though hardly in 
the language of literature. The preterite of blow, from 
blowan, ' to bloom/ is met with rarely. Crow has a 
weak preterite as well as a strong one, and in the past 
participle the weak crowed has supplanted the etymo- 
logically correct crowjt. In the case of hold, the pret- 
erite has made its way into the past participle, though 



346 English Langtiage, 

the original form holden still survives, and in certain 
legal phrases is the one regularly employed. 

236. Hang has a pecuHar history of its own. In 
Anglo-Saxon, along with the strong verb hon^ there 
was a weak verb, hanglan. In Early Enghsh the 
forms of these two were intermixed. The weak verb 
was adopted as the present and infinitive of both, and 
hon was consequently disused. The past participle of 
the strong verb, honge{ii), originally hangeit, made its 
way into the preterite, probably at first into the plural, 
and then into the singular. This did not take place 
early in the language of literature. Chaucer, for in- 
stance, still has the preterite he7tg. It was during the 
Middle English period that Imng became the estab- 
lished form, displacing the still earlier ho7ig. Attempts 
have been made in IModern English to make a distinc- 
tion between the use of the strong and the weak verb ; 
but so far none can be said to have established itself 
in the best usage, though there are certain expressions 
in which the employment of the one is generally pre- 
ferred to that of the other. 

237. Of the verbs originally belonging to this class, 
the following have gone over to the weak conjuga- 
tion : — 

1. ban (bannan), 6. glow {glowan), 

2. claw {clazvan). 7. hew {heawan), 

3. dread {dr'^dait), 8. hight {Jiatan). 

4. flow (^flowan), 9. leap (Jileapan). 

5. fold (^fealdan). 10. let (J^/art). 



Strong Verbs, — Class VII . 347 

11. low (hlowan). 17. sow {saivan). 

12. mow {jnawaii). 1 8. span {spannan), 

13. root (of swine) (wrotait), 19. swoop {swapan). 

14. row (rdwa7t), 20. walk (jvealcan), 

15. shed {sceadan), 21. weep (tvepan). 

16. sleep {slapan), 22. wheeze (hzvesaji). 

To these may be added the two following words, 
obsolete in the standard literary speech, but frequently 
appearing in imitations of the archaic style : — 

rede, from r^^-r?;^, * to advise.* 

greet, from gr^tauy ' to mourn.* 

238. All these verbs had exhibited weak forms at 
the beginning of the Middle EngUsh period, though 
the strong forms of many of them were still in 
existence, especially the form of the past participle. 
This three of them still continue to retain. Hew, 
mow, and sow have the strong participles hewn, mown, 
and sown as well as hewed, mowed, and sowed. In 
some of the English dialects, indeed, the original 
strong preterites mew and sew survive for mowed and 
sowed. Flow also shows occasionally the past ^d^x- 
ticiple /lown in Modern Enghsh, though almost exclu- 
sively in phrases founded upon Milton^s use of the 
word in a famous passage.-^ 

239. The verb highf, * to call,* or * to be called,' 

1 When night 
Darkens the streets, then wander forth the sons 
OfBelialfJlown with insolence and wine. 

Paradise Lost, I., Hne 502. 



34^ English Language, 

has now hardly any existence outside of poetry or 
pieces written in the serio-comic style. It is etymo- 
logically only a preterite. The forms of the verbs in 
Anglo-Saxon were : — 

hatan; heht or het, hehton or heton; haten. 

In Early Enghsh this verb appeared with a great 
variety of forms, of which the following may serve as 
examples : — 



haten -^ hihte ^ hoten ^ 

heten !- ; hi3t \ ; het \ . 

hoten J hyghte J hyght J 



The preterite hight^ frequently found with the end- 
ing -e, and perhaps considered in consequence a weak 
verb, made its way into the past participle and the 
present tense. This led gradually to the abandon- 
ment of the other forms, and by the end of the 
Middle English period hight had come to represent 
all parts of the verb which were then used. It ex- 
tended even to the passive. The Anglo-Saxon hatte, 
^ I am called,' ^ I was called,' was first represented in 
Early English by hafte and he tie ; but these forms 
also were abandoned for hight. The passive use still 
continues to some extent in Modern English, as, for 
example, in the following lines : — 

The one Abydos, the other Sestos hight. 

Marlowe, Hero and Leander, ist sestiad. 

Father he hight and he was in the parish. 

Longfellow, Childre7z of the Lord^s Supper ^ Hne 48. 



I 



The Strong Conjiigation. 349 

240. This completes the survey of the strong verbs 
still existing in English. We are now in a position to 
summarize the results of the examination that has 
been made, and to bring together under one view the 
scattered facts which have been recounted in the dis- 
cussion of the several conjugations. It is, of course, 
to be borne in mind that in all statements of numbers 
which follow, the same rule prevails in Modern Eng- 
lish as in Anglo-Saxon. It is the simple verbs alone 
that are taken into consideration, never the com- 
pound, unless express mention is made to that effect. 
With this proviso against misunderstanding, we are 
enabled to make safely certain general statements. 

241. The first is that Modern English retains pre- 
cisely seventy-eight of the three hundred strong verbs, 
more or less, which are to be found in Anglo-Saxon. 
Again, of these three hundred about eighty- eight 
others still exist in the language, but have gone over 
to the weak conjugation. This latter number cannot 
be stated with absolute accuracy. In the case of a 
few of the verbs, included in the Hsts of those which 
have passed from the strong conjugation to the weak, 
there is some doubt as to their originals belonging to 
the former. As a result of farther investigation, there- 
fore, some may have to be taken from the number 
just given, or some may even have to be added to it. 
Still the list will not vary materially from what has 
already been set down. Accordingly, assuming eighty- 
eight as a number not far out of the way, it follows 
that over one hundred and thirty strong verbs, once 



350 



English La7igiiage. 



belonging to the language^ have disappeared from it 
entirely. Some of these were obsolescent, or, per- 
haps, obsolete in later Anglo-Saxon, and cannot fairly 
be reckoned among the losses of our speech after the 
Conquest. Of those, however, that were in common 
use during the earliest period, and have since been 
dropped, the places have, in the majority of instances, 
been taken by verbs derived from the Norman-French. 
242. The second statement is, that of the seventy- 
eight existing strong verbs which have come down to 
us from Anglo-Saxon verbs of the same conjugation, 
fourteen have either developed weak forms also, or 
possess weak forms which may be due to a weak 
Anglo-Saxon verb that stood alongside of the cor- 
responding strong one. Hence they may be said to 
belong to both conjugations. These are the following, 
arranged under their respective classes : — 



I. 




IV. 


abide. 




shear. 


cleave, 


^to adhere.' 




shine. 




V. 


shrive. 




weave. 


II. 




VI. 


cleave, 


' to split.' 


heave. 


seethe. 




wake. 


III. 




VII. 


climb. 




crow. 


help. 




hang. 



The Strong Conjugation, 3 5 1 

Moreover, of these fourteen the strong forms of four 

— cleave^ ^to adhere/ seethe^ climb, and help — belong 
to the language of poetry rather than of prose. In 
the case of two others — shear and heave — the weak 
form is, on the whole, more common in the preterite 
of the first and in the participle of the second. 

243. The third statement is, that to these seventy- 
eight verbs which have exhibited strong forms during 
ail periods of our speech, there have been added, in 
the course of its history, thirteen others. These are 
chide^ hide, strive, and tluive, which can be assigned to 
Class I. ; fling, ring, dig, stick, and string, to Class 
III. j wear, to Class IV. ; spit, to Class V. ; and reeve 
and stave, to Class VI. Furthermore, as regards origin, 
seven of these thirteen — chide, hide, ring, dig, stick, 
wear, and spit — have been derived from verbs of the 
Anglo-Saxon weak conjugation ; two — thrive ^x^A fling 

— have come into the language from the Old Norse ; 
and one, strive, from the Old French. The remaining 
three are either of uncertain etymology or have sprung 
from nouns. Furthermore, six of these thirteen — 
chide, strive, thrive, spit, reeve, and stave — have also 
forms of the weak conjugation in use. The same is 
true, though not to so marked a degree, of dig, 

244. The fourth statement is, that with the verbs 
directly descended from Anglo-Saxon primitives, and 
with those derived from other sources, there are at 
present in the language seventy-one verbs which be- 
long exclusively to the strong conjugation ; and twenty 
which form their principal parts sometimes according 



352 English Language. 

to it and sometimes according to the weak conjugation. 
This would make ninety-one verbs now existing in 
our tongue which exhibit, either invariably or occa- 
sionally/ the strong inflection. 

245. As applied to the present speech, the foregoing 
statements are sufficiently accurate. At the same time, 
it must not be forgotten that great variations exist in 
the good usage of even the same period, and very 
great variations in the good usage of different periods. 
All general assertions are therefore liable to meet with 
specific exceptions. What would be regarded as cor- 
rect at one time is treated as incorrect at another. 
Corned for eame is met with frequently in the writings 
of the Elizabethan age. Wallis, the noted grammarian 
of the seventeenth century, whose work first came out 
in 1652, inserts in it the weak forms beai-ed, ehoosed, 
drawed, spinned^ siuimmed, and throwed^ along with 
bo7'e, ehose, drew, spun, swicm, and threw. Though 
such weak forms could not have been common among 
the educated, it seems unreasonable to suppose that 
they were not employed by them at all. Furthermore, 
both Ben Jonson and Wallis introduced S7iow, snew, 
and snown as a regular inflection of snow, though 
these strong forms are certainly rare in literature, if 
even known to it at all.^ 

246. There has, however, been an occasional ten- 
dency on the part of weak verbs to pass over to the 

1 It is, perhaps, possible that this was a misprint in Ben Jon- 
son's Grammar of show, shew, shown, and that it was copied on bis 
authority by WaUis. 



The Strong Conjugation. 353 

strong conjugation ; and in the case of three, a strong 
passive participle has been added to their inflection. 
They are the following : — 

, , , showed, ) 

1. snow, snowed, , > 

shown. ) 

2. strew, strewed, ' \ 

strewn. J 

sawed, 1 

3. saw, sawed, > 

sawn. J 

The first of these is derived from the Anglo-Saxon 
weak verb sceatuian, sceawode ; the -second, which is 
often written and oftener pronounced as straw ^ is from 
the Anglo-Saxon weak verb streawian, streawode. It 
was in the Middle English period that the strong parti- 
cipial forms of these two words came into use along- 
side of the weak ones; and, as in like instances, the 
analogy of verbs Kke know, blow, grow, and others, 
had the most powerful influence in their production 
and wide employment. But the strong forms never 
extended beyond the past participle, though the strong 
preterite shew for shoived early estabUshed itself in the 
provincial dialects, and has never died out. Saw, as 
a verb, does not apparently go back to an early period. 
It was doubtless derived from the noun spelled in the 
same way, and its strong past participle seems to have 
been developed first in Modern EngHsh. 

247. One further point needs to be brought out 
before concluding the examination of the changes that 
have gone on in the strong conjugation. No verb 



354 English Language, 

which reached the beginning of the Modern Enghsh 
period with strong forms in common use ever let the 
strong forms go out -of common use. There are verbs 
such as cli7nb and help which now belong regularly to 
the weak conjugation, though they are occasionally 
inflected according to the strong. But this was as true 
of them in the sixteenth century as it is now.-^ We 
are consequently enabled to say, that since the reign of 
Queen Elizabeth (15 5 8-1603), our speech has not 
lost a single strong verb. What the language then had 
it has ever since retained. Nor does it manifest the 
least disposition to abandon any it now has. True, 
there have been periods in which weak preterites and 
past participles, hke choosed, blowed^ freezed^ weaved, 
and numerous others, occur to a greater or less extent, 
and at times have found favor with some grammarians. 
But their employment has never broadened and per- 
petuated itself. In fact, the present disposition of the 
language is not only to cling firmly to the strong verbs 
it already possesses, but to strengthen their hold; and 
even to extend their number whenever possible. 
Forms once common, and in the best usage, such as 
shaked, shined, strived, and thrived, are either now 
much rarer than shook, shone, strove, and throve, or 
else are not met with at all. Woke, though not found 
in Shakspeare, Milton, and the Enghsh Bible, has be- 
come, during the last century, full as common as 
waked as the preterite of wake ; while dug may be 
said to have supplanted digged, the regular preterite, 

1 See page 155, 



The Weak Conjugation. 355 

not only of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 
but of all preceding periods. 

248. So decided, in truth, is the disposition the lan- 
guage now displays to prefer the strong forms, that it is 
not impossible that some verbs now inflected weak will 
return to their old conjugation, or that others which 
are strictly weak will pass over to the strong. Atten- 
tion has already been called to the inflection of dive 
(188). Cases of this kind may be always expected to 
occur. The English dialects also have retained the 
strong form in some cases where the literary language 
has assumed the weak, and at any moment the original 
inflection may be taken up by the latter from the 
former. These dialects, indeed, have often developed 
strong forms in verbs that are strictly weak, as has 
already been seen in the case of show^ shew] which is 
found both in England and this country. So, also, 
squeeze has a strong preterite squoze in the dialects of 
some parts of England j and this can be heard, like- 
wise, in various parts of the United States in the speech 
of the uneducated. Sporadic forms like these crop up 
here and there constantly in our literature ; and their 
occurrence renders it unsafe to assert that particular 
inflections are never employed. It can only be said 
that they are not the ones usually employed. 

The Weak Conjugation. 

249. It has already been pointed out that the dis- 
tinguishing characteristic of the weak conjugation is, 
that it now adds, or originally added, a syllable to form 



3S6 E7iglish Language, 

the preterite ; and that this syllable was, according to 
a generally received theory, nothing more than a 
verbal form corresponding to the reduplicated pret- 
erite of the English verb do. This supposed ancient 
form may be best explained by the following hypo- 
thetical account of its origin. Instead of employing 
an expression equivalent to / did love, the preterite 
was denoted by an expression equivalent to love-did- 
I; and this appended verb was so cut down, and so 
closely united with the leading verb, that only traces 
of it w^ere left. It was only in the dual and plural 
numbers of the Gothic preterite that its full form was 
seen. In Anglo-Saxon all that remained of it in the 
first person of the preterite singular was -de. For 
instance, Kedan, ' \o heed,' had for its past tense 
Jiedde, * heeded.' In general terms it may be said 
that the Anglo-Saxon weak verb formed its preterite 
by adding -de, or, in certain circumstances, -te. 

250. Its passive participle was also distinguished 
from that of the strong conjugation by the fact that 
the latter ended in -en ; while in the former the termi- 
nation was -d^ or occasionally -/. 

251. Furthermore, the Teutonic weak verb was 
divided into three conjugations, according to the 
character of the connective which entered between 
the stem and the termination. All of these three are 
preserved in Gothic and Old High German. But in 
the other early Teutonic tongues the third of the conju- 
gations above mentioned, the one with the connective 
ai, had practically disappeared. The verbs originally 



TJie Weak Conjugation. 357 

belonging to it had largely gone over to the second con- 
jugation, and the few which survived had intermixed 
forms derived from both the second and the first. 

252. The other two conjugations were both flour- 
ishing during the earhest period. The original con- 
nective in the first class had in Anglo-Saxon become 
e^ in the second it had become o) and hence the 
termination added to the stem was in one case -ede, 
in the other -ode. But a further modification of the 
inflection took place in the former class. When the 
stem of a verb of the first conjugation was long, the 
connective e was dropped in the preterite. For illus- 
tration, hyr-an, 'to hear,' with its long stem hyr, 
formed the preterite hyr-de, ^ heard,' not hyr-e-de, 

253. In the English of the Anglo-Saxon period, 
consequently, there may be said to be two conjuga- 
tions of the weak verb, — one forming the preterite 
by adding -de, or -ede, to the stem, the other by add- 
ing -ode. There were phonetic influences at work 
which, under certain conditions, changed or modified 
the character of the terminations, as will be seen 
farther on, but those just given may be regarded as 
the strictly normal endings. The following examples 
will illustrate the differences between them : — 



dem-an, deem 

fyll-an, /// 

er-ia-n, plough 

trymm-an, stre^igthen . 



dem-de. 
fyl-de. 
er-e-de. 
trym-e-de. 



loc-ia-n, look ^ loc-o-de. 



wun-ia-n, dwell j wun-o-de. 



}n. 



358 English Language. 

254. These represent the two early weak conjuga- 
tions as distinguished from each other in the preterite. 
But within certainly a century and a half after the 
Norman Conquest the distinction had disappeared. 
The connective of the second conjugation was gen- 
erally weakened to e, although it is occasionally found 
even as late as the end of the thirteenth century, and 
perhaps still later. A necessary result of this was, that 
verbs of the original Anglo-Saxon second conjugation 
formed their preterites precisely like short-stemmed 
verbs of the first conjugation, both having the connec- 
tive e. Thus, in the case of the preterites of the two 
verbs of that conjugation just given, locode was in 
Early English represented by lokede, and wunode by 
wonede, 

255. To this same practice conformed, in the latter 
part of the Old English period, and still more in the 
Middle English period, many, and perhaps most, of 
the long-stemmed verbs of the first conjugation. To 
use the preceding examples, the preterite dlmde be- 
came dejnede ; the preterite fylde became both filde 
and fillede, with an increasing tendency, after the 
beginning of the Middle English period, to employ 
the fuller form. During that period, consequently, the 
connective e had become the general connective of 
the weak preterite. This it has always since remained. 
There were, and still are, many exceptions to this rule ; 
but, as a general statement, it is sufficiently accurate. 

256. It may therefore be said that -ede in the Old 
English period was added to the stem of weak verbs 



The Weak Conjugation. 359 

to form the preterite. Thus the past tense of look 
was written and pronounced lookede. But in the 
fourteenth century certainly, and perhaps earlier, the -e 
final of -ede began to disappear from pronunciation, 
and in the fifteenth century the practice became gen- 
eral not to sound it. At the beginning of Modern 
EngHsh it had disappeared entirely. Its disuse in 
pronunciation led, likewise, to its disuse in writing or 
printing; lookede, to continue the same illustration, 
became looked. This left -ed as the addition with 
which to form the preterite in Modern EngHsh. It 
was also attended by another consequence. As the 
past participle usually ended in -ed, the dropping of 
the final -e of the preterite was followed necessarily 
by the result that the forms for the preterite and the 
past participle became the same. 

257. But the modification of the preterite did not 
stop here. At the beginning of the Modern English 
period the connective e of the preterite ending -ed — 
and the statement is likewise true of the past participle 
— began to be dropped in pronunciation. During 
the sixteenth century, and perhaps even later, usage 
seems to have varied on this point. In some words, 
or by some persons, the -ed was pronounced as a 
distinct syllable ; and in other words, or by other 
persons, the e was not sounded, and the -^ was joined 
directly in pronunciation to the preceding syllable, 
where it necessarily had often the sound of /. Looked 
of Middle EngHsh came, in consequence, in Modern 
English, to have the sound of lookt 



360 English Language. 

258. The process by which this result was reached 
was unquestionably a gradual one. The hurried speech 
of ordinary colloquial intercourse was necessarily the 
first to adopt it, and from that it made its way into 
general use. The poetry of the end of the sixteenth 
century shows that the dropping of the e of -ed in 
pronunciation had become widespread, and almost as 
universal as it is in the nineteenth. On this point the 
spelling is now of little or no service ; for, in writing 
or print, the full orthographic form is, in the large 
majority of instances, retained. At the present time 
the -ed is rarely heard as a distinct syllable, save in 
verbs ending in -d or -/, as di^ead, dreaded, wet, wetted ; 
and in certain participles used as adjectives, such as 
aged and learned, to distinguish them from the same 
words when used strictly as participles. The dropping 
of the e in some cases, however, caused a change of 
pronunciation, which, in return, reacted upon the 
spelhng of the preterite ; but this will be considered 
later (265). 

259. The termination of the regular preterite of 
the weak verb can, therefore, be described as having 
passed through the following changes : At the outset, 
it was -de, -ede, or -ode. All these were represented 
in Old English generally by -ede, and occasionally by 
-de simply. Ede, however, increased steadily in use 
during the Middle EngUsh period, but during that 
same period dropped its final -e. This left -ed to be 
transmitted to Modern English as the normal termina- 
tion of the preterite, though in the case of verbs ending 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 361 

with the unsounded final -e, such as love, hate, the 
vowel was not doubled. This statement is neces- 
sarily true only of the present spelHng, not, as we have 
just seen, of the present pronunciation. We add -ed 
in writing; in speaking we usually add only -d, or 
sometimes -/. We write thanked, for instance ; we 
give it the sound of thankt. 

260. In the following scheme the variations in form 
and pronunciation which have marked the history of 
the verbs dee7Ji, fill, and look in their transition from 
Anglo-Saxon through Old English and Middle Eng- 
lish to Modern English, will indicate the nature of the 
changes that have taken place in the regular verb of 
the weak conjugation : — 

deman, demde; demde; demede; deemed {pron. deemd). 
fyllan, fylde; filde; fillede; filled {pron. fild). 
locian, locode; lokede; lookede; looked {pron. lookt). 

261. So much for the strictly regular forms. We 
come now to the consideration of the 

IRREGULAR VERBS OF THE WEAK CONJUGATION, 

and of the causes which have led to the variations of 
form that now exist. These verbs may be divided 
into the two following classes : — 

1. Verbs in which the vowel of the stem remains 

the same throughout, and the variations which 
occur affect only the terminations. 

2. Verbs in which the vowel of the stem undergoes 

variation. 



362 English Language, 

262. In discussing the verbs of the first class, it is 
to be remarked at the outset that^ even in x\nglo- 
Saxon, the termination of the preterite was subjected 
to that same modification, which has been widely ex- 
tended in Modern EngHsh. From it have sprung, in 
consequence, a number of peculiar forms different 
from those of the regular inflection. As the connec- 
tive m weakened to e was dropped in the majority of 
verbs of the first weak conjugation, the result was, that 
-t/e was added directly to the stem, as in the preterites 
dlmde 2xA fylde given above (253). The effect of 
this was, in some cases, to change the pronunciation. 
The spelling conforming to the sound, d after certain 
consonants becam.e /; and -te was the syllable added, 
and not -de. 

263. In Anglo-Saxon, this was regularly the case 
when the stem of the verb ended in c, /, t, x, and 
sometimes in s^ as will be seen by the following ex- 
amples, in which the past participles are given as well 
as the preterites. It will be noticed that c final of the 
root passes, in the preterite, into h : — 



Infinitives. 


Preterites. 


Past Participles. 


secan, seek^ 


sohte, 


soht. 


cepan, keep, 


cEpte, 


ceped. 


cyssan, kisSy 


cyste, 


cyssed. 


gretan, greet, 


grette, 


greted. 


lixan, shine, 


lixte, 


lixed. 



264. In Early Enghsh some of these verbs occa- 
sionally resumed the connective e before the ending 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 363 

of the preterite. In that case the regular termination 
'Cie was employed, instead of -te. Thus, the past 
tenses of cepan and cyssan, given above, became in 
later English, according to the pronunciation, either 
kepte and kiste, or kepede and kissede. There was a 
natural tendency to extend to all verbs a termination 
which was given to the vast majority. This, to a cer- 
tain extent, diminished the number of those which, in 
Anglo-Saxon, had formed the preterite by adding -te. 
When, in later English, the final -e of this ending -ede 
dropped from the spelling, and the connective e from 
the pronunciation, change was rarely made in the 
orthography to indicate the change of sound. We 
retain the spelling of one form and the pronunciation 
of the other, as has been pointed out in the instances 
oilooked dxA thanked {2^"]^ 259). These are types of 
a large number of words now existing in our speech. 

265. It was not always the case, however, that the 
form which represented the actual pronunciation was 
rejected entirely. In some instances it continued in 
use, though rarely in exclusive use. The consequence 
is, that in Modern Enghsh, a number of double forms 
for the preterite and past participle are employed^ 
differing from each other, in some cases, only in 
spelling, and not at all in pronunciation ; or, if ever 
differing in pronunciation, they differ only in the sound 
of final -d or -/. They usually occur in words ending 
in /, //, n, /, sh, or in those ending in the sound of s. 
The following list will furnish some of the more 
common examples : — 



364 English Language. 

spelled, ^ fixed, ^ 

^P^"' spelt. I '^' fixt. I 

penned, ■) spoiled, "i 

pen, \ spoil, . \ 

pent. J spoilt, j 

learned, ^ blessed, ) 

learn, J- bless, \ 

learnt. J blest. i 

dipped, ■) cursed, ^ 

dip, \ curse, \ 

dipt. y curst, i 

266. There are many double forms, like these, to 
be found at various periods in our literature ; but in 
earlier times they usually represented actual differ- 
ence of pronunciation. Thus Spenser, for instance, 
indicated as a rule the sound of the termination by its 
spelling. We find, for example, in the first canto of 
the first book of ^'The Faerie Queene," the preterites 
advawtst, approcht, cald, chaunst, displaid, enhaunst, 
expeld, forst, gazd, glaunst^ knockf, moumd, perceivd, 
playnd, pusht, raizd, retournd or 7'etu7iid, seeiiid^ stopt 
and strowd ; and also the past participles beiittmbd, 
compeld, dazd, disfiiayd, drownd, enforst, ravisht, re- 
solvd, y-rockt, stretchf, sub dew d, tost, and vanqinsht. 
There can be found, it is true, the present way of indi- 
cating the fact that the e of the termination is not to 
be pronounced, by the insertion of the apostrophe in 
its place. Still this method does not occur in half a 
dozen instances. It is only when the ending consti- 
tutes a distinct syllable in pronunciation that we find 
the full form written by Spenser, as in seemed, drowned, 
dX\^fo7'ced in this same canto. With us -d is no longer 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 365 

added directly to the stem, except in a few cases to be 
considered later. The adding of -/ is more common ; 
but in general it may be said of this ending that it is 
found much oftener in the early Hterature of Modern 
EngHsh than in that of the present time. 

267. A series of forms, allied to these, though of a 
somewhat different origin, comes now to be considered. 
In Anglo-Saxon, verbal stems ending in -d or -/, pre- 
ceded by a consonant, usually dropped the final letter 
of the stem in the preterite. The conjugation of the 
verbs from which send and gird have been derived 
will show the original forms : — 

sendan, sende, sended 

gyrdan, gyrde, gyrded. 

Occasionally in the Anglo-Saxon period, forms with 
/ instead of d showed themselves in certain of these 
verbs ; and there was even then a disposition to drop 
the -ed of the participle. In Early EngHsh the ten- 
dency to employ / for d became more pronounced. 
The termination -te accordingly took its place beside 
-de in many of these verbs, and was often far more 
common in some of them. Their introduction into 
the preterite may have been largely aided by their 
adoption into the past participle, where in many 
cases, certainly, they were at first more frequently 
found. 

268. Here, again, the same course of proceeding 
took place as in the verbs whose history has just been 
given. After the contracted forms for the preterite 



366 English Language. 

and past participle had become established, new and 
strictly regular forms were often developed by the 
adding of -ed. These have become the ones generally 
found in Modern English. Still some of these verbs 
with contract forms continue to survive in the lan- 
guage. They are included in the following list : — 



I. lend, 


lent. 


4. spend, 


spent. 


2. rend, 


rent. 


5. (wend, 


went). 


3. send. 


sent. 







Of these 7^end has occasionally the full form rended ; 
while went has become the preterite of the verb go, 
and wend has developed, to take its place, the regular 
form wended (435). 

269. Some of these verbs, however, are still found 
with full and contracted forms of the preterite and 
past participle existing side by side. Usage varies in 
the case of each, one form being more common in 
some verbs, the other more common in others. The 
following is the list : — 



bended, ^ gelded, ^ 

'• '^^"'' bent. I 4- geld, ^^^^_ } 

blended,^ gilded, ^ 

^•'^^^'^^' blent. I ^•^^^' gilt. I 

builded, ^ ^ . ^ girded, -i 

3' ^"^1^- built. I '• ^''^' girt. I 

These are to be distinguished from such preterites as 
learned and learnt, dwelled and dwelt, mixed and 77iixt, 
passed diXid past (265) ; for in these latter, while there 



Irregular Weak Verbs, 367 

is an actual difference in the spelling, there is usually 
no additional syllable heard in the pronunciation of 
the fuller form. 

270. These verbs, it will be observed, have pre- 
served a distinct form for the preterite and past par- 
ticiple either by changing -d into -/, or by adding, so as 
to form a distinct syllable, the ending -ed which had 
then come to be the one regularly employed. This 
latter was the method usually resorted to, even in the 
case of verbs ending in -d or -/. Thus the Early 
Enghsh dreden had a preterite dredde, and greten had 
the preterite ^r(f//(?. When the final -e ceased to be 
pronounced, the place of -de and -ie was taken in 
both instances by the regular ending -ed. The Mod- 
ern English forms are accordingly dreaded and greeted. 
But this change did not invariably occur. We come, 
in consequence, to the consideration of a class of 
verbs which dropped the termination of the preterite 
and past participle altogether. This, with the losses 
which took place in other parts of the verb, had the 
effect of making all the principal parts exactly alike 
in form. 

271. To illustrate the precise history of these verbs, 
let us take two — spr^dan, ' to spread,' and seftan, ' to 
set.' The following are the principal parts in Anglo- 
Saxon : — 



Infinitive. 


Preterite. 


Past Participle. 


sprsedan, 


spr3edde, 


sprseded. 


settan, 


sette, 


seted ^ 
set(t) J 



368 English Lang7tage, 

The infinitives of these two verbs became in Old Eng- 
Hsh spreden and setten^ and, with the disappearance 
of the final -n^ sprede and sette. With these latter 
agreed, as usual, the forms for the first person of the 
present tense. The past participle also dropped gen- 
erally its ending. It had shown, even in the Anglo- 
Saxon period, a decided leaning towards contraction, 
as witness above in the case oi set{t)^ found alongside 
of seted. This now became the rule in verbs of this 
kind. Accordingly, during the Early English period 
these verbs presented ordinarily the following inflec- 
tion : — 

sprede, spredde, spred. 

sette, sette, set. 

272. During the fifteenth century the final -e disap- 
peared from these forms in writing, as a result of its 
disappearance from pronunciation. In consequence, 
the second d or ^, whenever it would have been left in 
the inflection, was dropped as unnecessary. The re- 
sult accordingly was that the forms for the infinitive 
and the present, the preterite and the past participle, 
came to be precisely alike ; and these verbs entered 
Modern Enghsh with the following inflection, which 
they still retain : — 

spread, spread, spread, 

set, set, set. 

What is true of these is true of several other Anglo- 
Saxon verbs, w^hose principal parts have come to pre- 
sent no change of form in Modern English. 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 369 

273. But the tendency to bring about this result 
was not hmited to native verbs. Words were brought 
also into this class which did not belong to the Anglo- 
Saxon, but came from the Norse or the Norman- 
French. Even words which in Anglo-Saxon added 
-ode to form the preterite, and not simply -de, were 
sometimes made to conform to this inflection. It was 
inevitable, however, after verbs had thus been stripped 
of their original endings, and had been reduced to 
one unvarying form in their principal parts, that a 
reaction should set in. In some instances this has 
been wholly successful. The verb has become strictly 
regular. In other cases, contract and full forms of 
the preterite came into use, and have since been re- 
tained side by side. In certain instances the contract 
forms have become the exclusive ones. The general 
present practice of the language in regard to these 
latter will now be exhibited. In those derived from 
the Anglo-Saxon, the principal parts as found in that 
period, in the Early English period, and in the Modern 
English period, will be given in each case. 

274. The following are the verbs that belonged to 
the weak conjugation in the original tongue. In the 
case of a few of them certain of the principal parts 
are theoretical, especially the past participles : — 



I. hreddan, 
redde (n) ^ 
ridde (n) i 
rid, 



hredde, 


hreded. 


redde ^ 
ridde y 


red-j 
rid j'' 


rid, 


rid. 



370 



English Language, 



.. settan, 

sette(n), 
set, 


sette, 

sette, 
set, 


seted 1 
set(t) i 
set. 
set. 


. scyttan, 
schutte(n) ") 
schette(n) i ' 
shut. 


scytte, 
schutte ) 
schette / * 
shut, 


scyted. 
schut \ 
schet/' 
shut. 


.. spittan, 
spitte(n), 
spit, 


spitte, 
spitte, 
spit. 


spited. 

spit. 

spit. 


. sprsedan, 
sprede(n), 
spread, 


sprsedde, 
spredde, 
spread. 


spraeded 

spred. 

spread. 



275. The following verbs of this class originally 
belonged to the Anglo-Saxon strong conjugation; 
hence only the Early English forms nearest to the 
modern forms are given : — 



6. berste(n), 
burst, 

7. lete(n), 
let, 

8. scheden, 

shed. 



berst, pi bursten, bursten. 



burst, 

let 

lette 

let. 



}. 



schedde, 
shed, 



burst. 

leten, 

let. 

sched, 
shed. 



9. Hight. (See Section 239.) 

Burst has developed also a regular preterite and past 
participle bicrsted^ which in the language of slang is 
frequently corrupted into '' busted." 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 371 

276. The following verbs of this class came into 
ike language from the Old Norse : — 



10. 


caste (n), 


caste, 


cast. 




cast, 


cast. 


cast. 


II. 


cutte(n), 


cutte, 


cut. 




cut, 


cut, 


cut. 


12. 


hitte(n), 


hitte, 


hit. 




hit, 


hit, 


hit. 


13- 


putte(n). 


putte, 


put. 




put, 


put, 


put. 



To this hst may be added the word 

14. * stead,' and its compound ' bestead.* 

Both of these were apparently little used till towards 
the beginning of Modern EngUsh, and indeed have 
never been common at any time. Here, also, prob- 
ably belongs 

15. thrust, thrust, thrust. 

There is a Middle English thresten, from the Anglo- 
Saxon prcestian^ ' to twist ' ; but the Modern English 
verb probably comes from the Norse. 

277. To the Old French we owe the two following 
verbs of this class : — 



16. 


coste (n), 




cost. 


17- 


hurten. 




hurt, 



costed 1 
coste i ' 


costed 


cost 


cost, 


cost. 


hurte, 


hurt. 


hurt, 


hurt. 



}■ 



3/2 English Language. 

278. These seventeen verbs undergo now no change 
of form, though several of them occasionally exhibited 
full forms in the earlier speech. This inflection in 
some cases lasted down to the beginning of Modern 
English. Cutted and spitted, for example, can be 
found in the Middle English period, and the past 
participle c as ted, though used as an adjective, occurs 
in Shakspeare.^ But there are a number of these 
verbs which, by the beginning of the Modern English 
period, had usually developed full regular forms along- 
side of the contract on#s, and both have continued in 
use to the present time. Most of them belonged to 
the Anglo-Saxon v>^eak conjugation ; but of those in the 
following Hst that do not, sliti^ from the Anglo-Saxon 
strong conjugation, and quit comes from the Old 
French. Of the remaining two, split apparently did 
not make its entry into the language till about the 
sixteenth century, though on this point there is no 
certainty. It is possibly of Scandinavian origin. The 
second one, bet, is even of later origin, and its ety- 
mology is doubtful. 

279. In the following list are comprised verbs 
which have full regular forms for the preterite and 
past participle, along with those in which the principal 
parts are the same throughout : — 



I. cnyttan, 




cnytte, 


cnyted. 


knitte(n), 




knitte, 


knitted 
knit 


knit, 




knit ^ 
knitted /' 


knit 
knitted 


1 


Henry 


v., act iv, scene i» 





}■ 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 



373 



2. 


swsetan, 


swcette, 




swseted. 




swete(n), 


swette, 




swet. 




sweat, 


sweat 
sweated 


}■ 


sweat 
sweated 


3- 


wsetan, 


wsette, 




wseted. 




wete(n), 


wette, 




wet. 




wet, 


wet 
wetted 


}• 


wet 

wetted 


4. 


hwettan, 


hwette, 




hweted. 




whette(n), 


whette, 




whet. 




whet, 


whetted 
whet 


}• 


whetted 
whet 


5- 


screadian, 


screadode. 


screadod. 




schrede(n), 


schredde 


» 


schred. 




shred, 


shred 
shredded 


r ) 


shred 
shredded 


6. 


sHtten, 


slitte. 




slit. 




slit, 


slit 
slitted 


r J 


slit 
slitted 


7- 


quite(n), 


quitte. 




quit. 




quit, 


quitted 
quit 


r > 


quitted 
quit 


8. 


split, 


split 
splitted 


( > 


spht 
splitted 


9- 


bet. 


bet 
betted 


/■ > 


bet 
betted 



}■ 



}• 



}• 



280. To this list may be added the somewhat rare 
verb 



10. wont, 



wonted 
wont 



}. 



wonted 
wont 



}• 



374 English Language, 

This verb is derived from the past participle of the 
verb won, ' to dwell/ which is now obsolete, though 
occasionally appearing in poetry-^ The original in- 
flections were as follows : — 

wunian, wunode, wunod. 

wonie(n), wonede, wont. 

The past participle wo7it used as a present developed 
its preterite wonted as early as the sixteenth century. 
The verb is still in use, though it cannot be called 
common. 

281. In this list of ten verbs with double preterites 
and participles it is largely a matter of individual pref- 
erence which of the two shall be adopted. The 
number, indeed, might be somewhat extended, if the 
various forms that have appeared at various times in 
the writings of good authors were to be included. 
The contracted form wed for wedded, especially in the 
past participle, is not infrequent. In the first period of 
Modern English, lift for lifted is sometimes met with,^ 
and other unusual forms, either full or contract, are 
occasionally to be found in our literature. Plight for 
plighted would be an illustration. In the principal 

1 Out of the ground uprose, 
As from his lair, the wild beast, where he wons 
In forest wild, in thicket, brake, or den. 

Milton, Paradise Lost, VII., 457. 
2 Lift, as the preterite, Lodge and Greene's Looking- Glass for 
Lo7idon in GREENE'S Works, ed. of 1861, page 123; as a past participle 
in Marlowe's Tamburlaine /., act ii. scene i ; Peele'S David 
and Bethsabe, ed. of 1861, page 468; Cartwright's Lady Errant, 
act i. .«;cene 2 ; ShadWELL'S Libertine^ act i. 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 375 

parts of those here mcluded, the forms which seem to 
be preferred have been first mentioned. Yet on a 
question of varying usage, and of usage that varies at 
different periods, no absolute rule can be laid down 
which will be accepted by all. 

282. Up to this period the anomalous verbs of the 
weak conjugation that have been mentioned, not only 
retain the same vowel through all their principal parts, 
they retain also the same length of that vowel. We 
now come to the discussion of the anomalous verbs 
of the second division (261). In these the vowel of 
the stem was either shortened in the preterite and the 
past participle, or it was changed entirely. According 
to these two sorts of change, the verbs of this division 
may be arranged in two classes. 

283. The first class, which shortened the stem- 
vowel, is a development of the Middle and Modern 
English periods ; for no such shortening was known to 
the Anglo-Saxon. It seems to have been partly due 
to the analogy of the vowel-change that went on in 
verbs of the strong conjugation, the influence of which 
could hardly fail to make itself felt to some extent on 
verbs of the weak conjugation, particularly on those 
that did not assume the full regular preterite ending, 
-ed{e). This class may be conveniently subdivided 
further into two groups. The first will embrace the 
verbs whose stems ended in -d or -/, especially the 
former. These dropped the -de or -te of the termina- 
tion, like the class to which spread and set belonged 
(274) ; but they differed from them in having the 



376 



English Language. 



vowel of the preterite shorter than that of the infinitive 
or of the present tense. 

284. The hst embraces the following verbs, in 
which the principal parts, as found in Anglo-Saxon, in 
Early English, and in Modern English, are given : — 



I. 


bledan, 


blEdde, 


blEded. 




blede(n), 


bledde. 


bled. 




bleed, 


bled, 


bled. 


2. 


bredan, 


bredde, 


breded. 




brede(n), 


bredde, 


bred. 




breed, 


bred, 


bred. 


3. 


fedan, 


fEdde, 


fcded. 




fede(n), 


fedde, 


fed. 




feed, 


fed. 


fed. 


4. 


l^edan, 


l^dde. 


l^ded. 




lede(n), 


ledde. 


led. 




lead, 


led. 


led. 


5. 


metan, 


mette, 


meted. 




mete(n), 


mette, 


met. 




meet, 


met. 


met. 


6. 


redan. 


redde. 


reded. 




rede(n), 


redde, 


red. 




read. 


read. 


read. 


7- 


spedan. 


spedde. 


speded. 




spede(n), 


spedde, 


sped. 




speed, 


sped, 


sped. 


8. 


tidian. 


tidde, 


tided. 




(be)tide(n), 


(be)tidde. 


(be)tid. 




(be) tide, 


(be)tid. 


(be)tid. 



285. The compound betide does not go back earlier 
than the Old EngHsh period, but the simple verb is 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 377 

found in Anglo-Saxon, and was in constant use for 
several centuries later. In this list should etymologi- 
cally be reckoned chide, cJiid, and hide, h^id ; but for 
the reasons given in section 175, it seems best to 
regard them as strong verbs. There is also another 
verb, Jieat, which, in Anglo-Saxon and Early English, 
was conjugated as follows : — 

hgetan, haette, haeted. 

hete(n), hette, het. 

This in Elizabethan English has a preterite, or at 
least a past participle, heat^ along with the full form 
heated, and this still is heard in the language of 
low Hfe. 

286. Two other verbs, light and plead, which are 
also inflected regularly, can be added to this list. 
One of them presents the following forms in Anglo- 
Saxon and Middle English : — 

lihtan, 

lighte(n), 

light, 

In this word, or rather in these words, are repre- 
sented two Anglo-Saxon verbs, one meaning ^to shine,' 

1 If it once be heat in flames of fire. 

Greene, Alphonsus, ed. 1861, page 232. 
The iron of itself though heat red hot. 

Shakspeare, King John, act iv. scene i. 
He's hiat to the proof. 

Webster, Northward Ho, act i. scene i. 



lihte, 


lihted. 


lightede ^ 
lighte i ' 


lighted 


light 


lit, 


lit. 



378 



English Language. 



and the other ' to alight. ' Though different in originj 
they have nearly the same inflections. The con- 
tracted forms are much more common with the 
modern verb derived from the first than with the 
one derived from the second. In the present literary 
use rit is almost entirely confined to light in the sense 
of ' to illuminate/ though in colloquial speech it is 
sometimes used with the other. Plead is from the 
Old French, and the preterite plead is far less com- 
mon in the literary language than pleaded, though tit 
is perhaps as common as lighted. It is also to be 
added that betide sometimes exhibits the full regular 
form be tided, and that speed also in certain senses 
has speeded. 

287. The second group of verbs whose stems have 
come to be shortened in the preterite and past parti- 
ciple (283) embraces all those words which end in other 
letters than -^or -/. They are nineteen in number, and 
nearly one-half of them belonged to the strong conju- 
gation in Anglo-Saxon. The first list will include 
those which have been weak verbs through all periods 
of their history. 



1. dselan, 
dele(n), 
deal, 

2. dreman, 
dreme(n), 
dream, 



dselde, 
delede 
delta 
dealt, 



}. 



dremde, 
dremede 1 
dremde / * 
dreamt, 



daeled. 
deled 1 
delt i* 
dealt. 

dremed. 

dremed. 

dreamt. 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 



379 



3. felan, 
fele(n), 
feel, 

4. hyran, 
here(n), 
hear, 

5. cepan, 
kepe(n), 
keep, 

6. hlinian, 
lene(n), 
lean, 

7. Isefan, 
leve(n), 
leave, 

8. msenan, 
mene(n), 
mean, 

9. reafian, 

reve(n), 

(be) reave, 

10. sceoian, 
shoe(n), 
shoe, 



felde, 
felede 
felte 
felt, 

hyrde, 
herde, 
heard, 

cepte, 
kepte, 
kept, 

hlinode, 

lenede, 

leant, 



}■ 



filed, 
feled. 
felt. 

hyred. 

herd. 

heard. 

ceped. 

kept. 

kept. 

hlinod. 

(lened). 

leant. 



l^fde, 


Isefed. 


levede \ 
lefte r 


leved 1 
left /* 


left, 


left. 


msende, 


maened. 


mende, 


mened") 
ment / 


meant, 


meant. 


reafode. 


reafod. 


revede \ 
refte T 


reved 1 
reft i' 


reft. 


reft. 



scode, 
shode, 
shod. 



scod. 
shod, 
shod. 



To these may be added the forms of k7ieel and sweep 
of which the Anglo-Saxon originals are doubtful : — 



380 English Language. 

11. knele(n), "knelede, kneled. 
kneel, knelt, knelt. 

12. swepe(n), swepede, sweped. 
sweep, swept, swept. 

288. From the strong conjugation in Anglo-Saxon 
the following anomalous verbs of the weak conjuga- 
tion have been derived. The Roman numerals indi- 
cate the class to which they originally belonged : — 

13. cleve(n) (IL), clevede, cleved ) 

cleft } 
cleave, cleft, cleft. 

14. crepe(n) (IL), "«P«de\ crepid 1 

crepte y crept > 

creep, crept, crept. 

15. fle(n) (II.), fledde, fled, 
flee, fled, fled. 

16. lepe(n) (VII.), ^^P^^^ |, ^^P^^ |. 

lepte y lept J 

leap, leapt, leapt. 

17. lose(n) (II.), loste, lost. 
lose, lost, lost. 

18. slepe(n) (VII.), slepte, slept, 
sleep, slept, slept. 

19. wepe(n) (VIL), ^^'^P«de\ weped) 

wepte i wept ) 

weep, wept, wept. 

To the verbs of this list the strong verb sho^t (i8o) 
has become so thoroughly assimilated that with the 



Irregular Weak Verbs. 381 

practical disappearance of its past participle shotten 
it might fairly be reckoned among the anomalous 
verbs of the weak conjugation. 

289. In a large number of these words, Middle 
and Modern EngHsh have developed full forms along- 
side of the contracted ones, and some of the former 
are even more common than the latter. Especially 
is this true of the earlier period of Modern EngHsh. 
The full forms kneeled, dreamed, and leaned are the 
only ones found at all in our version of the Bible, or 
in Shakspeare, or in Milton's poetry. Leapt, though 
going back to the Old English period, is far from 
being as common as leaped. The simple verb reave, 
outside of the past participle, is now little used ; and 
the compound bereave has almost invariably bereaved 
in the preterite, though bereft is occasionally met with. 
Cleaved, moreover, is nearly as common as cleft. Full 
regular forms of some of the others have occasionally 
made their appearance. On the other hand, both 
Ben Jonson and WalHs in their grammars give dread 
and even tread as preterites in good use in the seven- 
teenth century, and the latter says that keeped and 
weeped, though by no means so common as kept and 
wept, were nevertheless employed. 

290. The vowel-variation in these words is a devel- 
opment of the later speech. It is unknown to the 
earHest period of the language. At that time, nearly 
every one of the above-mentioned verbs that existed 
in it and was inflected weak had a long vowel in all 
the principal parts, as the primitive forms show dis- 



382 English Language. 

tinctly. In Anglo-Saxon there were, however, more 
than a score of verbs of the weak conjugation, in 
which there was a real variation of vowel in the pret- 
erite. Some of these have disappeared from the 
tongue altogether, others have become perfectly regu- 
lar. In the following list will be found the verbs of 
this second class (282) which survive, with their origi- 
nal and transitional forms. Through all periods it will 
be observed that in the preterite and past participle 
the termination was added directly to the stem, with- 
out an intervening vowel ; and as these verbs are con- 
stantly confounded by many with those of the strong 
conjugation, the endings will be distinctly marked. 
291. The list comprises the following words : — 

1. bringan, 
bringe(n), 
bring, 

2. by-cgan, 
buyen, 
buy, 



3. secan, 
seche(n) ' 
seke(n) 
seek \ 
be-seech / * 



e(n)-( 



4. sellan, 
selle(n), 
sell, 

5. tellan, 
telle (n), 
tell, 



broh-te, 


broh-t. 


brough-te, 


brough-t. 


brough-t, 


brough-t. 


boh-te, 


boh-t. 


bough-te, 


boh-t. 


bough-t, 


bough-t. 


soh-te, 


soh-t. 


sough-te, 


sough-t. 


sough-t, 


sough-t. 


seal-de, 


seal-d. 


sol-de, 


sol-d. 


sol-d, 


sol-d. 


teal-de, 


teal-d. 


tol-de, 


tol-d. 


tol-d, 


tol-d. 



Irregular Weak Verbs, 



383 



6. J?encan, * to think/ 
thenke(n), 
think, 

7. hyncan, 'to seem,' 
(me)thinketh, 
(me) thinks, 

8. wyrcan, 
worche(n), 
work, 



J?oh-te, 

though-te, 

though-t, 

})uh-te, 

(me) though-te. 

(me) though-t. 

worh-te, 

wrough-te, 

wrough-t. 



}?oht. 

though-t. 

though-t. 

J>uh-t. 



worh-t. 

wrough-t. 

wrough-t. 



292. To these eight may be added two others : 
One is teach, in which, in Anglo-Saxon, there was 
no variation of the vowel, though there was the usual 
change of consonants found in those verbs whose 
stems terminated in a guttural. The other is catch, 
which comes from the Old French. The following are 
the forms : — 



9. tiecan, 
teche(n), 
teach, 

10. cacche(n), 
catch, 



tseh-te, 

taugh-te, 

taugh-t, 

cau3-te, 
caugh-t, 



t3eh-t. 

taugh-t. 

taugh-t. 

cau3-t. 
caugh-t. 



293. To these words may be added two others, — • 
reach and stretch, — which belonged originally to this 
same class. In Modern English they have conformed 
thoroughly to the regular inflection, though in its first 
period the original one not infrequently appears. The 
following are the forms these verbs exhibited in Anglo- 
Saxon and in Early English : — 



384 English Language, 

rsecean, raehte, r^ht. 

reche(n), raughte, raught. 

streccean, streahte, streaht. 

strecche(n), straughte, straught. 

294. In Shakspeare raught occurs four times as a 
preterite, 7'eached not at all ; but the participial forms 
raught and reached both appear, each once. In other 
Elizabethan dramatists, also, raught occurs not infre- 
quently, though it cannot be found in our version of 
the Bible. The form j-//-^//^/?/ became obsolete much 
earlier, though it has affected the variant of distract{ed) 
from the Latin distractus, causing it to assume the 
form distraught. To the list may also be added the 
verbs pitch and shriek, some of whose older and 
irregular forms made their appearA.nce as late as the 
seventeenth century. The former in Early English 
was conjugated as follows : — 

picche(n), pighte, pight. 

The latter as follows : — 

shrike (n), shrighte, shright. 

In both cases the past participle was the form that 
maintained itself most vigorously. 

295. Several of the verbs of this class have developed 
regular forms alongside of the irregular ones. Selled 
and telled, for instance, go back certainly to the four- 
teenth century, and can be met with in the sixteenth, 
and perhaps later. During the whole history of Mod- 



Irrezular Weak Verbs, 



385 



ern English catched and ie ached, which go back to 
the Old Enghsh period, have maintained themselves 
alongside of caught and taught, though the present 
tendency is to regard them as improper. Beseeched 
made its appearance in the sixteenth century, and is 
still in use, though far less common than besought. 
On the other hand, worJzed has largely displaced 
wrought. Its origin seems to be comparatively late. 
It was certainly in existence in the seventeenth cen- 
tury,^ but apparently it was not till the eighteenth that 
it began to be generally employed. 

296. This concludes the consideration of the two 
general classes of anomalous verbs of the weak conju- 
gation. There remain two verbs which have under- 
gone contractions peculiar to themselves. They are 
have and make, and the manner in which the existing 
forms have been developed out of the preceding ones 
can be traced in the following scheme : — 

haefed ^ 
gehaefd J 
haved ^ 
had r 

had, had. 



habban, 

habbe(n) ■ 
have(n) 
han 
have. 



haefde, 

havede -^ 
hadde T 



macode, 
makede | 
made j ^ 
made, 



macod. 
maked ■ 
mad 
made. 



make(n), 
make, 

The compound behave does not, however, follow its 
1 It is mentioned by Wallis in his Grammar. 



386 English Language, 

primitive, but is now inflected regularly ; though at one 
period it formed the preterite hehad, 

297. One other verb remains to be mentioned. 
This is clothe^ which has for its original two Anglo- 
Saxon verbs with the same signification. One is 
cladian^ from which the modern verb has developed 
its regular inflection; the other clEda72^ from whose 
preterite clcedde came the Early English dadde and 
the Modern English clad, 

298. There are, furthermore, two participial forms 
that require consideration. One is the contracted form 
dight, which is now practically all that is left of the 
Anglo-Saxon verb dihtan, ^ to set in order/ in Early 
English dihte{ii). The participle belongs rather to 
poetry than to prose, and it is rarely that any other 
part of the original verb occurs. The other word is 
fraught. This is the contract past participle of the 
Early English YtYhf7'aughte{n), — unknown to Anglo- 
Saxon, — which verb in Alodern English has been sup- 
planted by its Yd.xidinX. freight 

299. With the statement that certain verbs ending 
in y change this y to i in the preterite, as say, said, 
pay, paid, — which is nothing more than an ortho- 
graphic variation, — the history of all the irregular 
forms of the weak verbs now existing has been given. 
It is possible, indeed, that anomalous forms not men- 
tioned here may occasionally be found ; but, if so, they 
are all explainable according to the analogy of the 
various forms that have been described. 



The Strong Past Participle, 387 

PAST PARTICIPLE OF THE STRONG CONJUGATION. 

300. It is the formation of the preterite that con- 
stitutes the fundamental distinction between the strong 
and the weak verb. Still there is an important and 
well-recognized difference between the terminations of 
their past participles. Those of the weak verb ended, 
in the earhest period of English, either in -d or -/, as 
they end now ; those of the strong during that same 
period ended in -en, except in a few instances where 
the e was syncopated. The past participles of both 
conjugations agreed, however, in often prefixing the 
particle ge, as is usually the case in German now. Into 
the later history of this form it is necessary to enter 
here, on account of the relation it bore to this part of 
the verb. 

301. In the earliest period of the language the parti- 
cle ge was prefixed indifferently to nouns, adjectives, 
pronouns, adverbs, and verbs. In the case of the 
adjective we still see a survival of it in the e of enoicgh, 
which in Anglo-Saxon was ge-noh, and finally assumed 
the modern spelling, after passing through various tran- 
sitional forms, among which were i-noh, i-nouh, and 
i-nough. There was not, in the case of the verb, any 
disposition originally to restrict the prefix to the past 
participle ; but this became, in Early English, the pre- 
vailing, though not absolutely exclusive, practice. But 
the particle sometimes suffered a change of form before 
the Conquest, which change, after the Conquest, be- 
came habitual. For ge, either y or / is found from the 



388 English Laiigitage. 

twelfth century on ; and in the manuscripts these two 
letters frequently appear as capitals, Y or 7. And not 
only was this y or / applied indifferently to participles 
of the weak or of the strong conjugation, it was applied 
with equal indifference to those of foreign or native 
verbs. 

302. It was in the employment of this prefix that a 
marked distinction early showed itself in the speech 
of different parts of England. The Northern dialect 
never made use of it to any extent ; hardly even at all, 
except in the writers who directly imitated the language 
of Chaucer. On the other hand, it was a prevalent, if 
not the prevailing, practice to add it to the past parti- 
ciple in the dialect of the South. As usual, the literary 
speech, the language of the Midland, steered a middle 
course between its two neighbors. During the thir- 
teenth and fourteenth centuries it may be said that 
the influence of the Southern dialect predominated. 
In the literature of the Midland produced up to the 
very end of the latter century, participial forms like 
ilent^ ymaked^ isworn^ ygo, ^gone,' ybe, ^ been,' ydo, 
* done,' are exceedingly common. After that period, 
however, the influence of the Northern speech made 
itself more and more felt in respect to the use, or 
rather disuse, of this prefix. 

303. In the fifteenth century, the employment of y 
or / with the participle began to be given up, and in 
the sixteenth century it practically disappeared. It 
occasionally made its appearance much later, and even 
at this day is seen at times in poetry, especially in 



The Strong Past Participle. 389 

burlesque, or in imitations of the archaic style. One 
noted instance of its employment is found in its addi- 
tion to the present participle of the verb point} in 
Milton's poem on Shakspeare ; and in the imitations of 
the archaic style prevalent in EHzabethan Enghsh it is 
occasionally prefixed to various parts of the verb.^ At 
the present day y-ckpt, which is the past participle 
of the obsolete ckpe, ' to call/ is almost the sole repre- 
sentative of what was once a widely extended usage. 

304. But not only in regard to this prefix to the 
past participle of either conjugation, but in regard to 
the termination of the strong past participle also, a 
marked difference between the two extreme dialects 
of England arose. The speech of the North evinced 
from the outset a decided inclination to retain the full 
form -en ; while, on the other hand, the speech of the 
South, while retaining the <?, was disposed to drop the 
-n. This is a distinction that, roughly speaking, pre- 
vailed ; it is not to be insisted upon as one that was 
invariably observed. 

305. The result of these two agencies — the drop- 
ping of the prefix y or / by the Northern dialect, the 
dropping of the final -n by the Southern — was that 
the past participles of verbs of the strong conjugation 
showed themselves in two forms in Early English. 

1 Under a zi-ax-ypointing pyramid. — Line 4. 

2 With gaping jaws, that by no means j;;z^^ 
Be satisfied from hunger of her maw. 

SacKVILLE, induction to Mirror for Magistrates, 
stanza 51. 



390 



English Language. 



These are constantly exemplified in the Midland lit- 
erature of the fourteenth century, and have left every- 
where traces of themselves in the development of the 
modern speech. The difference between these can be 
best comprehended by an inspection of the following 
examples : — 



Infinitive. 


Past Participle, 
Northern Dialect. 


Past Participle, 
Southern Dialect. 


write, 


writen, 


y- write. 


sing, 


sungen, 


y-sunge. 


steal, 


stolen, 


y-stole. 


swear, 


sworen. 


y-swore. 


beat, 


beten, 


y-bete. 



306. The existing past participle of the strong con- 
jugation has in all cases followed the Northern dialect, 
and rejected the prefix y \ but in consequence of the 
difference that prevailed in the representation of the 
original termination -en, that ending came into Mod- 
ern English with a good deal of variation. These 
diversities can be arranged under the following heads, 
though in a few cases the differences are rather ortho- 
graphical than real. It is, of course, understood that 
only verbs which have retained the original past par- 
ticiple come here under consideration. 

307. (i) Verbs of Class III. (190) have lost the 
termination -en entirely. The apparent exceptions to 
this rule — boicnden, drunken, foughteii, shrunken, and 
sunken, to which may be added the archaic holpen — 
have already been considered (202). It is only to be 
added, that at the beginning of the Modern English 



The Strong Past Participle. 391 

period these few full forms were more widely used 
than at present. This is the only class of strong verbs 
which showed the disposition to drop this ending 
entirely, but this it did throughout. The new verbs 
which were adopted into it, like ring and fling, aban- 
doned their past participles rungen and flunge7i as 
readily as sing and begin did sicngen and begunnen, 

308. Outside of this class, but two of the original 
strong verbs can be found which exhibit the tendency 
to give up the -en wholly. One is shoot, of Class II., 
of which the full form shotten is obsolete as a par- 
ticiple, and the other is come, of Class IV., which has 
given up comen (208). The participial form still 
retains, indeed, the final -e in writing ; but in pro- 
nunciation the termination has been entirely dropped. 

309. (2) Some verbs have retained the termina- 
tion, though in certain of them the e is syncopated ; 
but this is the only contraction they undergo, as they 
do not drop the -n. They come from all classes ex- 
cept the third (190). The following is the list of 
past participles in which the original ending now 
rarely or never disappears : — 

CLASS I. 

1. driven. 

2. risen. 

3. shriven. 

4. smitten. 

5. stricken. 

CLASS II. 

6. flown. 



CLASS IV. 


7- 


born(e) 


8. 


shorn. 


9- 


torn. 


CLASS V. 


10. 


given. 


II. 


lain. 


I2o 


seen. 



392 



English Language. 



CLASS VI. 

13. drawn. 

14. forsaken. 

15. shaken. 

16. slain. 

17. sworn. 

18. taken. 



CLASS VII. 

19. blown, 

20. blown. 

21. fallen. 

22. grown. 

23. known. 

24. thrown. 



To this last class also may be added the archaic 
holden, 

310. (3) Between these groups stands a third, 
which has double forms for the past participle, — 
one with the ending -n, the other without it. A 
still further distinction might be made in the fact 
that some words drop -en entirely, others drop only 
-n ; but this is a distinction existing merely on 
paper, as this final -e is never sounded. The follow- 
ing is the list of verbs which exhibit double forms of 
the past participle, with the classes to which they 
belong : — 



I. 

bitten, ^ 

1. bite, I 

bit. J 

ridden, ^ 

2. ride, > 
rid. / 



3. slide, 



4. write. 



rid 

slidden, 

shd. 

written, 

writ 



ten, ^ 



5. choose, 

6. cleave, 

7. freeze, 

8. seethe, 



n. 

chosen, 

chose. 

cloven, 

clove. 

frozen, 

froze. 

sodden, 

sod. 



The Strong Past Participle, 393 

'3- get, ;; _ ' I 



9. break, 
10. steal, 



IV. 

broken, 
broke, 
stolen, 
stole, 



"'} 



bidden, -1 

II. bid, V 

bid. / 



12. eat. 



eaten, 
eat. 



14. speak, 

15. tread, 

16. weave, 

17. beat, 



gotten, 

got. 

spoken, 

spoke. 

trodden, 

trod 

woven, 

wove. 



} 

dden,^ 
d. / 



VIL 

beaten, 

beat. 



en, -I 



311. This list is true only of the present usage. 
Even during the Modern English period there are 
several other verbs — notably stride and S77iite — that 
have exhibited shortened forms besides the full ones. 
To it may be also added the originally weak verbs 
chide and hide (175), which have in the participle the 
double forms chidden, chid, and hidden, hid, respec- 
tively. In regard to most of these verbs it is sufficient 
to say that the full forms are now ordinarily preferred. 
The shorter ones belong generally to the colloquial 
rather than to the hterary speech. Still no rigid in- 
variable rule can be laid down in regard to the 
employment of either, and the widest diversity of 
usage has existed, and still continues to exist, in 
respect to many of them. 

312. In the case of the verbs which have just been 
considered, it is the original past participle that has 



394 



English Language. 



continued to exist, whether in a full or in an abbrevi- 
ated form. But there are a number of verbs in which 
this original participle has been discarded entirely. 
Its place has been suppUed in two ways. Just as there 
were strong verbs in which the form of the participle 
made its way into the preterite, so also, in a few in- 
stances, the form of the preterite made its way into the 
past participle. The following is the list of verbs in 
which this transition of the preterite into the participle 
has occurred, and is still in use ; the older forms, when 
entirely obsolete, are printed in Italics : — 



Infinitive. 


New Passive Participle. 


Old Passive Participle 


hold, 


held, 


holden. 


drink, 


drank, 


drunk. 


sit. 


sat, 


sitten, 1 
siL ) 


stand. 


stood. 


stonden. 


wake, 


woke, 


waken. 


(a)bide, 


(a) bode, 


(a) bidden. 



shine. 



shone. 



shinen. 



313. It was in the sixteenth century, particularly in 
the latter part of it, that most of these transitions were 
effected. The existence of the etymologically correct 
form shinen is perhaps doubtful. KX. any rate the 
weak form shined was for a time much more common 
than that of the strong preterite. Drank, especially 
in the last century, threatened to drive out drunk 
entirely ; but, though still in good use, the strictly 



The Strong Past Participle. 395 

correct form is coming to be generally preferred. 
Almost the same statement can be .made of ate, 
though this as a participial form has never been as 
common as drank, 

314. These words in the list just given are, how- 
ever, merely the relics of what was once a general 
movement, which has been almost entirely arrested. 
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the use of 
the preterite for the past participle was common in a 
large number of verbs in which it is no longer seen. 
The literature of the Elizabethan period, and later, 
abounds in instances of the use of rode for ridden, of 
forsook for forsaken, of shook for shaken, of d7'ove for 
driven, of took for taken, and of lurote for written. 
There are several other verbs in which a similar use of 
the preterite occurs with more or less of frequency. 
In some instances, it looked as if they might displace 
the regular forms, just as stood has driven out the ety- 
mologically correct stonden. They lasted down fre- 
quently to a late period, and are occasionally to be 
met with now. Wrote, for illustration, is very common 
for 7Juritten in the literature of the eighteenth century, 
and even l>egan for begicn and rose for risen can be 
then found in good use.-^ But though some of these 

1 As examples which might be almost indefinitely increased, the 
following are given : — 

Labienus — 
This is stiff news — hath with his Parthian force, 
Extended Asia from Euphrates : 
His conquering banner shook from Syria 
To Lydia and to Ionia. 

Shakspeare's Antony and Cleopatra, act i. scene 2. 



396 



English Language. 



preterites occasionally appear now as participles, the 
language at the present time is averse to their employ- 
ment, and is disposed more and more to use exclu- 
sively the etymologically correct form (223). 

315. In the case of two verbs which belong both to 
the weak and to the strong conjugation, the place of 
the strong participle has been taken by the weak. 
These are C7'ow and cleave, ^to adhere/ which now 
present the following forms : ■ — 



Infinitive. 

cleave (i.), 
crow (vii.), 



Preterite. 

cleaved 
clave 
crew 
crowed 



Past Participle, 
cleaved. 

crowed. 



The strong participle crown is sometimes found in 
poetry, but the form is archaic. 

316. There remain to be brought together a num- 
ber of verbs at first inflected strong, which, though 
going over to the weak conjugation, continue still to 



1 How am I mistook in you. 

Merry Wives of Windsor^ act ill. scene 3. 

To unfold 
What worlds or what vast regions hold 
The immortal mind, that \\^2Sh forsook 
Her mansion in this fleshly nook. 

IMlLTON, // Penseroso^ line 91. 

He had rose pretty early this morning. — FIELDING, Joseph 
A7idrews, I., ch. i6. 

Her tears which had long since began to wet her handkerchief. — 
lb., IV., ch. II. 



The Strojig Past Participle. 



397 



retain their origina,! past participle. They have, m 
consequence, double forms. There are nine of these, 
as will be seen in the following Hst : — 



1. grave (vi.), 

2. hew (vn.), 

3. lade (VI.), 

4. mow (vii.), 

5. shape (VI.), 

6. shave (vi.), 

7. sow (vn.), 

8. swell (ill.), 



graved, 

hewed, 

laded, 

mowed, 

shaped, 

shaved, 

sowed, 

swelled. 



2d, I 



graved, | 
graven. / 
hewed, \ 
hewn, i 
laded, 1 
laden. J 
mowed, 
mown, 
shaped, \ 
shapen. i 
shaved, ") 
shaven. J 
sowed, 1 
sown. / 
swelled, ' 
swollen. 



::} 



To this Hst belongs, also, the Early EngUsh strong 
verb : — 



9. rive (l). 



rived, 



rived, 
riven, 



: } 



To these may perhaps be properly added gnaw and 
wax^ which occasionally exhibit the strong participial 
forms gnawn and waxen (231). For burs ten, carven, 
and molten see Section 204. 

317. It has already been pointed out (246) that 
the weak verbs show, strew, and saw developed strong 
past participles which are now in good use, and that 



398 English Language. 

hidden and chidden are strong participles formed by 
adding -en to the preterites of weak verbs (175). 
These forms, which are in their origin corruptions, are 
now estabhshed as correct. They may have come into 
the language at the outset from the Northern dialect, 
which, as we have seen, was inchned to retain the full 
form of the past participle. For not only did the 
Northern dialect so prefer the termination -en as to 
retain it in the cases where it strictly belonged, it also 
manifested the disposition to add it to words to which 
it did not properly belong. Certain weak verbs, such 
as cast, cut, pict, thrust, mainly of Scandinavian origin, 
added the ending -en to the weak passive participle, 
which by contraction had become the same as the 
infinitive, as it is in Modern English. This produced 
such forms as casten, ctitten, putten, thi^usten or 
throssen. Of a precisely similar formation is the 
verbal adjective boughten, not infrequent in certain 
districts of America, and found occasionally in the 
literature of England. 

318. It cannot be said that such forms as these have 
ever made their way to any extent beyond the dia- 
lects in which they originated ; but scattered through 
the whole of Modern English literature are occasional 
instances of the substitution of a strong participial 
termination for that of a weak one, usually for the 
sake of the rhyme. This is true, at least, of its earli- 
est period. The participial forms sain for said, be- 
reaven for bereaved, sweaten for sweat{ed) , paven for 
paved, are examples which show the existence of this 



The Strong Past Participle. 399 

tendency, even though the forms have not been 
adopted.^ But a most marked instance belongs to 
the present century. This is the past participle 
prove?i for proved. The word is derived from the 
French, and like all other foreign verbs has until the 
present century been inflected, in hterary use, accord- 
ing to the weak conjugation throughout. But the 
strong participial form pi'oven has made its way from 
the Scottish sub-dialect of the Northern dialect into 
the language of literature, and not only has grown 
common, but promises to become universally ajc- 
cepted ; for it is widely employed by many of the 
best modern writers, and, in particular, occurs in the 
prose of Lowell, and frequently in the later poems of 
Tennyson. 

319. Two other participial forms are worthy of 
attention. The verb bear has two forms, born and 
borne ^ of which the latter is the one in general use, 
while the former is limited to the passive sense of 

1 Both thou, and all the rest of this thy train, 
Shall well repent the words which you have sain, 

Greene, Alphonsus, ed. of 1861, page 231. 

Where sense is blind, and wit of wit bereaven^ 
Terror must be our knowledge, fear our skill. 

Daniel, Civil Wars, Book I., stanza 123, ed. of 1602. 

Grease, that's sweaten 
From the murderer's gibbet, throw 
Into the flame. 

Shakspeare, Macbeth, act iv. scene i. 

Rise, rise, and heave thy rosy head 
From thy QOxoX-paven bed, 

Milton, Comus, line 886. 



400 English Larigitage. 

•brought forth.' This distinction between the two 
did not become accepted till towards the end of the 
last century. In the early period of Modem English 
lie had also a past participle lien along with lain ; 
but this no longer exists save in poetry, and even in 
that is rare. 

PAST PARTICIPLE OF THE WEAK CONJUGATION. 

320. The past participle of weak verbs was formed 
in the primitive Indo-European by adding to the stem 
the suffix ta. Of this the consonant appeared in the 
early Teutonic tongues as th^ t, or d. In Anglo- Saxon 
it was d ] and, as the vowel of the suffix had disap- 
peared, it was d only that was added. This was 
joined on directly to the connective of the second 
weak conjugation, as luf-o-d, ' loved ' ; or to the con- 
nective e of the first weak conjugation, as daji-e-d, 
^deemed.' But sometimes this connective e was 
dropped, in which case d often became /. In general, 
also, the history of the past participle of the weak 
conjugation is, since the fifteenth century, the same 
as the history of the preterite, when the dropping of 
the final -e by that part of the verb brought about 
in them both identity of form. The former was con- 
sequently subjected to precisely the same changes 
that befell the latter. To this there is one slight 
exception. 

321. Either after the analogy of verbs whose past 
participle is precisely the same in form as the present 
tense, as hit, hurt, or because they were made to re- 



Number and Person of the Verb, 401 

semble their Latin primitives, a number of verbs in 
the INIiddle EngHsh period did not always add -d to 
form the past participle ; as consummate (Lat. con- 
stinimat-iis) for consummated, ci^eate (Lat. creat-tcs^ 
iox created, pollute {\jdX. pollut-ns^ ior polluted. These 
forms without final -d belong mostly to words that are 
derived from Latin verbs of the first conjugation ; but 
they are not limited to them. The usage extended 
down to the Modern EngHsh period, and can hardly 
be said to have been abandoned before the end of the 
seventeenth century. Certain writers are remarkable 
for their fondness for such forms. As a general rule, 
they are employed in an adjectival sense; but even 
then their participial character is plainly apparent. 
The participial adjective situate for situated, common 
in legal phraseology, is a survival of this usage. 

NUMBER AND PERSON. 

322. As regards the three primitive numbers, the 
Gothic was the only one of the Teutonic languages that 
retained the dual of the verb ; but, even in that, it 
was confined to the first and second persons. AX the 
time that language was committed to writing, the third 
had disappeared ; and, in order to say that ^^ they two " 
had done anything, the plural form had to be used. 
In Enghsh the verb, through all the stages of its his- 
tory, knows only of the singular and plural numbers : 
no trace of a dual appears in its earliest monuments. 

323. A commonly received theory as to the origin 
of the personal endings is, that the personal pronoun. 



402 English Language. 

as the subject of a verb, was originally placed after 
it, and not before it, as now; just as if we, instead of 
saying I hate, they hate, should say, hate /, hate they, and 
so on for the other persons. According to this theory 
the pronouns, appended to the stem of the verb, 
gradually united with it so as to form one word ; as 
even in Early Enghsh, for illustration, thinkest thou or 
sayest thou often appears as one word, thinkestoWy 
seistow. Thus joined to the verb, they came at last 
to be regarded as an inseparable part of it, as really 
belonging to it. Then they were used to form the 
inflection of the tense ; but as the personal pronouns 
originally appended to the persons to denote the sub- 
ject were different, the endings were, at first, necessarily 
different in all cases. 

324. When these pronouns had become so thor- 
oughly united with the verb as to form one word, the 
recollection of their original pronominal character was 
certain in time to pass away. They came to be looked 
upon simply as an integral part of the inflection of the 
verb, and not as separate words or syllables denoting 
the subject, x^s this feeHng grew predominant, a per- 
sonal pronoun was frequently put before the verb as 
its subject. This naturally became more and more 
common as the sense of the original pronominal nature 
of the personal ending became fainter and fainter. 
When it had become a constant practice to employ 
the personal pronoun as the subject of the verb, and 
usually preceding it, the necessity of an ending to 
denote the person was gone ; that was denoted by 



Personal Endings of the Verb, 403 

the personal pronoun which was the subject. The 
value of distmct terminations for the persons was 
accordingly destroyed. 

325. If the theory be true, it was inevitable that 
under such circumstances the terminations should be 
confounded, and, if much confounded, that many of 
them in course of time should disappear. This has 
been fully exemplified in the history of the Teutonic 
languages, and of our own in particular. In Gothic 
there is a distinct termination for each of the three 

persons of the plural of the present indicative, ;;/ 

for the first person, -th for the second, and -nd for the 
third. In Anglo-Saxon this diversity of endings had 
been given up in this number of this tense. The 
terminations of the first and third persons had been 
entirely abandoned, and -th, the termination of the 
second person, had become the common termination 
of the three. 

326. The result was just as marked in the case oi 
the present subjunctive. In this mode the Gothic 
still preserved the distinction of the various persons 
by the endings. In the Anglo-Saxon, however, while 
there was a distinction of form between the singular 
and the plural, the three persons of the singular had 
all the same termination, as had likewise the three 
persons of the plural the same. A similar statement 
can be made about the plural of the preterite. Here 
the older tongue, the Gothic, still preserved the dis- 
tinction of persons by the endings, while in Anglo- 
Saxon but one of these original endings survived 



404 English Language. 

This was strictly the termination of the third person, 
which was extended to the other two. But barren of 
these endings as is our earhest speech when compared 
with the Gothic^ it is rich when compared with what 
we have to-day. The history of the tenses will show 
the steady loss in this respect that has overtaken the 
inflection. 

TENSES OF THE VERB. 

327. The EngUsh, like all the Teutonic tongues, 
has but two simple tenses, — the present and the 
preterite. About them as centres have been devel- 
oped verb-phrases which express the ideas and rela- 
tions conveyed by the inflectional forms to be found 
in other languages. The use of these two tenses is' 
far more limited in Modern English than it was in the 
ancient speech. The present then generally expressed 
also the ideas for which we now use, not merely the 
future but the future perfect ; while the preterite 
denoted what is now conveyed by the imperfect, the 
perfect, and the pluperfect. These forms have, more- 
over, undergone changes so various, that it will be 
necessary to consider each one of the two simple 
tenses by itself. 

THE PRESENT TENSE, INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE. 

328. The following paradigms of the strong verb 
singan, ' to sing,' and of the verbs demaji, ' to judge,'' 
and erian, ' to plough,' of the first weak conjugation, 
and lodariy 'to look,' of the second, will show the 



The Present Tense. 



405 



inflection of the present indicative and subjunctive i? 
the Anglo-Saxon period. 



Singular. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


I. ic 


sing-e, 


sing-e, 


dem-e, 


dem-e, 


2. Pu 


sing- est, 


sing-e, 


dem-est, 


dem-e, 


3. h-e 


sing-e^. 


sing-e. 


dem-e'S. 


dem-e. 


Plural. 










I. we^ 










2. ge > 


• sing-a'S. 


sing-en. 


dem-a'S. 


dem-en. 


3. B ) 










Singular. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


I. ic 


loc-ie, 


loc-ie. 


er-ie. 


er-ie, 


2. pu 


loc-ast, 


loc-ie, 


er-est, 


er-ie, 


3. he 


loc-a'S. 


loc-ie. 


er-e'S. 


er-ie. 


Plural. 










I. w~e^ 










2. ge (- 


IOC-la's. 


loc-ien. 


er-ia^. 


er-ien. 


3. B ) 











330. In these paradigms it will be seen that the 
stem of the strong verb singari is sing ; that the con- 
nective is a weakened to e in the singular of the 
indicative and in both numbers of the subjunctive ; 
that the personal endings, so far as they have been 
preserved, are -st of the second, and -d of the third 
person singular, -3" of the plural indicative, and -n of 
the plural subjunctive. Most verbs of the first weak 
conjugation do not differ here from the strong verb va 



4o6 English Language. 

their inflection. In the second weak conjugation it 
will be noticed that the place of the connective o has 
been taken by the connective ia, which, however, is 
only seen pure in the plural indicative. 

331. This is the common inflection in the Anglo- 
Saxon, as it is exhibited in the classical dialect, the 
West-Saxon. But, after the Norman Conquest, the 
present tense of the verb exhibited marked differences 
in the three great dialects of the English speech, that 
arose and developed Hteratures of their own during 
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. These dif- 
ferences are most marked in the plural number. If 
we represent the present tense of singen as it would 
be inflected in each of these dialects, we should have 
displayed the following forms : — 



Singular. 


Southern. 


Midland (East). 


Northern. 
I St Form. 2d Form. 


/ 


sing-e, 


sing-e, 


sing, sing-e (s), 


Thou 


sing-est, 


sing-est, 


sing-es, sing-es, 


He 


sing-eth. 


sing-eth. 


sing-es. sing-es. 


Plural. 








Hi or They 


sing-eth. 


sing-en. 


sing. sing-es. 



What is true of singen is also true of verbs of the 
weak conjugation. 

332. It is evident at a glance that the Southern 
forms are much nearer the classic Anglo-Saxon than 
either of the others ; and that the Midland are pre- 
cisely the same as the Southern in the singular num- 
ber. As regards the Northern, it is to be remarked 



The Present Tense, 407 

that the forms in -s go back to a period before the 
Conquest, although the scantiness of Northumbrian 
Hterature, and the uncertainty attending the date of 
composition of the httle that has been preserved, 
make positive statements hazardous as to the time of 
the transition of the final -^ into -s, or the extent of 
usage of the latter. 

333. It will be observed, however, that there are 
two sets of Northern forms. One of these, though 
going back to the thirteenth century, is far nearer 
Modern Enghsh than either of those found in the 
Midland or the South. In general^ it may be said 
of the two, that, when the verb has for its subject a 
personal pronoun directly preceding it, it uses the first 
form ; but in other cases the forms in -s are usually 
though not invariably found. In consequence, in the 
Northern English of the thirteenth and fourteenth 
centuries, they think and men think would ordinarily 
be represented by thei think and men thinkes ; and 
this is still a pecuHarity of the Scotch dialect. 

334. It is the Midland form, however, that has 
been the ruHng one in Modern Enghsh. It has, it is 
true, been seriously affected by the two dialects bor- 
dering upon it. During the Early Enghsh period the 
influence of each one of the three upon the one near- 
est it was plainly perceptible. The Eastern Midland 
has not unfrequently the plural ending -th, and even 
occasionally the Northern third person singular in -s. 
This latter form was far more common in the West 
Midland division of the Midland dialect, upon which 



408 English Language. 

the speech of the North exerted in certain details a 
powerful influence. But the later history of these 
forms will be confined to the history of the present 
tense of the East Midland dialect. 

335. We begin with the first person of the singu- 
lar. Even in the earhest period this had usually 
dropped the personal ending. The connective e, 
which had consequently become the termination, was 
also given up in the Middle English period. In this, 
the Northern dialect preceded the Midland, and, 
doubtless, largely influenced it. This ending -e really 
disappeared from all verbs ; but it was retained in 
the spelhng of many, though never sounded in pro- 
nunciation, as in love and give; and this has con- 
tinued the practice down to the present time. The 
Northern dialect also added -s at times to the first 
person, probably from a false analogy with the other 
persons, which all had this ending. This occasionally 
appears in English literature as late as the sixteenth 
century, though in many cases it is hard to tell whether 
the termination was due to design or to typographical 
error. 

336. The second person, through all the periods 
of English, outside of the distinctively Northern dia- 
lect, has regularly ended in -st^ and there has never 
been a time when the supremacy of this termination 
has been seriously shaken. Still, the form in -s ap- 
peared even in West-Saxon, and after the Norman 
Conquest it was the regular ending of the Northern 
dialect. As late as the Elizabethan period, this same 



TJie Present Tense. 409 

form will be found occasionally alongside of -st^ as 
can be seen in the following examples : — 

Thou art not thyself; 
For thou exists on many a thousand grains 
That issue out of dust. 

Shakspeare, Measure for Measure^ act iii. scene I. 
My sharpness thou no less disjoints. 

JONSON, Epigra7n 58. 

But in such cases the final /was almost always dropped, 
in order to avoid the crowding together of numerous 
consonants, caused by the previous dropping of the 
connective e. In the examples above given, the full 
forms would be exist-e-st, disjoint-e-st. 

337. The suffix -d of the third person singular was 
in the Anglo-Saxon period frequently changed into -s 
in the North of England ; and, in the works still ex- 
tant in the Northumbrian dialect, forms in -d and -s 
stand side by side. By the thirteenth century, how- 
ever, the latter had completely supplanted the former 
in this division of Enghsh speech. Outside of it, the 
ending -th was regularly employed, not only during the 
Old English, but during the Middle English, period. 
Chaucer almost invariably has the third person singu- 
lar terminating in -th, except when he designedly 
represents the dialect of the North. The very few 
instances in which he otherwise has the ending -s (as 
in ^^The Boke of the Duchesse," line 257) are due 
to the necessity of rhyme.-^ 

1 Instances occur, however, in the East Midland dialect, in which 
the forms in -s are found where the necessity of rhyme cannot be 



410 English Langtcage. 

338. But in the sixteenth century the termination 
in -s gradually made its way from the Northern dialect 
into the language of Hterature. After the middle of 
that century, it became with each succeeding year 
more common. For about a hundred years, the forms 
in -s and -th lasted side by side with apparently little 
general difference in their usage. Books and writers 
naturally varied. The authorized version of the Eng- 
lish Bible does not employ the third person 'singular 
in -s. Ben Jonson does not even mention it in his 
grammar, although it is of constant occurrence in his 
writings. But, by the middle of the seventeenth cen- 
tury, the form in -s had become the prevailing one, 
and has since that time become nearly the exclusive 
one. It is the English Bible that has kept alive the 
form in -th ; but it is rarely employed now, save in 
poetry and in the solemn style. During the eighteenth 
century occasional efforts were made to revive it, and 
the form hath in particular was frequently employed 
instead of has. But the practice did not continue. 

339. The Midland plural -en is of uncertain origin. 
By some it is regarded as being nothing more than an 
intrusion of the subjunctive ending -en into the indica- 
tive, helped by the fact that this same termination was 
also that of the preterite. To whatever due, it was a 

alleged, as in the following extracts from Langland'S Vision of 
Piers Plowman, Text B : — 

And as his loresman teres hym, bileueth and troweth. 

Passus xii., 183. 
Thus the poete preues that the pecok for his fetheres is reuerenced. 

Passus xii., 260. 



The Present Tense, 411 

distinctive characteristic of the Midland dialect, and 
showed itself as early as the end of the twelfth century. 
The Southern speech, as has been seen, varied little 
from the classic Anglo-Saxon, and formed its plural in 
'Cth, the connection a or ia of the latter having in 
' all cases become e in the former. The Northern, hav- 
ing often changed the -dd into -as before the Norman 
Conquest, adopted after that event the form -es or -s 
exclusively, or dropped the termination altogether. 
These three terminations of the plural lasted side by 
side for centuries ; and, though strictly denoting differ- 
ent dialects, they were to some extent interchanged. 
As a result, there are but few old EngHsh and still 
fewer Middle English manuscripts in which at least 
two forms are not represented, though one is naturally 
much more common than the other. 

340. It is from the Midland form in -en, however, 
that the Modern English has strictly been derived. 
Still it is evident that the Northern forms, existing as 
early as the thirteenth century, without any termina- 
tions at all, must have had great influence in bringing 
about the result we now see. The -n began to be 
widely dropped, even early in the Middle English 
period ; and this in time was followed by the abandon- 
ment of -e in most cases. Tellen, for example, became 
telky then tell. The vowel naturally disappeared first 
in pronunciation \ and its disuse in pronunciation was 
generally, though not invariably, followed by its dis- 
use in orthography. The dropping of the -n and the 
dropping or retention in the spelHng of the -e, caused 



412 English Language. 

all the persons of the plural to assume the same sound 
and form as the infinitive and the first person of the 
singular. It has already been stated-^ that, according 
to Ben Jonson, this -en was employed until the time of 
Henry VIII. " But now/' he adds, ^^ whatsoever is the 
cause, it hath quite grown out of use, and that other • 
so generally prevailed, that I dare not presume to set 
this afoot again ; albeit, to tell you my opinion, I am 
persuaded that the lack hereof, well considered, will 
be found a great blemish to our tongue." 

341. The termination -en is occasionally found 
through the whole of the sixteenth century ; but it 
appears as an avowed archaism, not as a form in con- 
stant and current use. It is, therefore, limited to the 
language of poetry. In the latter part of this century, 
a great impulse was given to its employment by the 
practice and authority of Spenser, who introduced it 
largely into his writings. In this custom he was fol- 
lowed for a time by no small number of admirers and 
imitators. By the middle of the seventeenth century 
it had. however, disappeared almost entirely from ht- 
erature of any kind. It was regularly revived in the 
numerous imitations of Spenser that were produced 
in the eighteenth century, such, for instance, as Thom- 
son's ^^ Castle of Indolence " (a.d. i 748) . As a natural 
result, it was often misused', — a fate which had occa- 
sionally befallen it in the sixteenth century. Even 
then we find it sometimes appended to the first person, 
producing such forms as / loven, I passen, — forms 

1 See page 152. 



TJie Present Tense. 413 

which have never been actually used by anybody in 
any period. Errors of this kind, however, were alto- 
gether more frequent in the eighteenth century. 

342. The Northern plural in -s lasted in reality to 
a much later date than the Midland form in -en. In 
the prose Hterature of the sixteenth century it is far 
from uncommon, 'and it can be found even later, in 
the seventeenth. These statements are especially true 
of the third person; the first and second with this 
ending are by no means frequent, though occasionally 
found. But there are more than two hundred plurals 
in -s to be met with in Shakspeare's plays, though these 
are changed wherever possible in modern texts, and 
can only be found by consulting the original editions. 
In some instances the metre has required their reten- 
tion ; ^ in others the rhyme, as in the following song 
from the third scene of the second act of ^^ Cymbe- 
line": — 

Hark ! hark ! the lark at heaven's gate sings, 

And Phcebus gins arise, 
His steeds to water at those springs 

On chalic'd flowers that lies. 

The plural in -s is by no means confined to Shak- 
speare, however, but is in fairly frequent, though hardly 
what can be called general, employment during the 
whole Elizabethan period. By the middle of the 
seventeenth century, however, it had gone out of 
literary use. The language of low life, however, 
retains to some extent this form to the present day. 

1 See page 129. 



414 English Language, 

343. The Southern plural in -th was never so com- 
mon as the Northern in -s, but, so far as literature 
is concerned, may be said to have lasted somewhat 
later. With the writers of the EKzabethan period it 
is largely confined to the two forms doth and hath^ 
which occur, however, with a good deal of frequency, 
though, as in the case of the Northern forms, they 
are usually made in modern editions to conform to 
modern grammar. Specimens of the usage can be 
seen in the following extracts : — 

Ladies and tyrants never laws respecteth. 

Daniel, Delia, Sonnet xxxi. (early editions). 

By it doth grow 
About the sides all herbs which wretches use, 
All simples good for medicine or abuse. 

Fletcher, Faithful Shepherdess, act ii. scene 3. 

344. In Anglo-Saxon a contracted form existed in 
the second and third persons of the present singular, 
confined to verbs whose stems ended in -d, -t, or -s. 
It is exemplified in the following paradigm of ridan^ 
' to ride ' : — 

1 . ic rid-e, 

2. pu rid- est, or rist, 

3. he rid-e^, or rit. 

These contract forms, especially in the third person, 
lasted long after the Conquest. Through the whole 
of the Old and Middle EngHsh periods they are 
constantly to be met with, as bit from biddeth^ rit 



The Present Tense. 415 

from rideth, sit from sitteth, rist from riseth, glit 
from glideth, stant from stardeth. By the beginning 
of the Modern EngHsh period, the full forms had 
generally taken their place ; or perhaps it would be 
better to say they were displaced by the form ending 
in -s. The verb list, meaning ' please/ still continues 
to show in the modern language the contracted form 
listy along with the forms listeth or lists, 

345. It is hardly necessary to say that, in all the 
early periods of the language, there are many varia- 
tions from the forms that have been here given. The 
connective e is often syncopated ; it is replaced often 
by y ox i\ the -th of the endings frequently appears as 
-/ or -d\ and numerous other variations could be men- 
tioned which need here no more than a general refer- 
ence, as they have had no influence upon the forms 
existing in the modern speech. 

346, The history of the present subjunctive forms 
is essentially the same as of those of the indicative. 
As in the Midland dialect, both possessed in the plural 
the same ending -en, all that has been said of that 
number of the latter will also apply to the former. 
The disappearance of the -n from both modes took 
place at the same time, as did also the disappearance 
of the -e in those cases where it was dropped from the 
spelling at all. It is only in the second and third 
persons of the singular that the subjunctive forms 
differ at all from those of the indicative \ and the 
second person is so Httle employed, that now the only 
marked difference of inflection is in the third person. 



4i6 English Language, 

It is mainly owing to these two modes assuming almost 
the same inflections throughout that the distinct shades 
of thought once expressed by the subjunctive, as con- 
trasted with the indicative^ have practically disappeared. 
To denote these, the language is now obhged to resort 
to other methods, the discussion of which belongs to 
syntax exclusively. 

THE PRETERITE. 

347. As it is the method of forming the preterite 
which constitutes the fundamental distinction between 
the weak verb and the strong, it is important to give 
several examples of the inflections of this tense. As, 
furthermore, the inflection of the weak preterite is 
not only simpler than that of the strong, but has also 
influenced the latter in the ending of the second per- 
son singular, it is the one that will be first considered. 

THE PRETERITE OF THE WEAK CONJUGATION. 

348. For the purpose of exhibiting the inflection 
of the weak preterite, the verbs danan, ' to deem,' and 
eria7t, ' to plough,' of the first conjugation, will be 
taken and locian of the second. The following are 
the paradigms : — 



Singular. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


I. ic 


dem-de, 


dem-de, 


er-e-de, 


er-e-de, 


2. f?U 


dem-dest, 


dem-de, 


er-e-dest, 


er-e-de, 


3. he 


dem-de. 


dem-de. 


er-e-de. 


er-e-de. 


Plural. 










I. we \ 










2. ge \ 


dem-don. 


dem-den. 


er-e-don. 


er-e-den, 


3. B ) 











TJie Weak Preterite, 417 

Singular. Indicative. Subjunctive. 

1. ic loc-o-de, loc-o-de, 

2. /^u loc-o-dest, loc-o-de, 

3. he loc-o-de. loc-o-de. 

Plural. 

1. we^ 

2. ge \ loc-o-don. loc-o-den. 

3. Ill ) 

349. As has been previously pointed out (255), 
e became the general connective of all these verbs in 
Early English. Furthermore, the forms of the indic- 
ative and subjunctive plural were assimilated by the 
weakening of the indicative ending -on to -en. Then 
followed one additional modification. The final -n of 
the plural was frequently dropped, even as early as the 
twelfth century ; and this practice became more and 
more common in the centuries which followed. By 
the beginning of the Middle Enghsh period it was the 
usual, though not invariable, practice in the Midland 
dialect. Hence in it the inflection of these same 
verbs regularly assumed, at that time, the following 
form for the indicative : — 



Singular. 


Singular. 


Singular. 


dem-e-de, 


er-e-de, 


lok-e-de, 


dem-e-dest, 


er-e-dest, 


lok-e-dest, 


dem-e-de. 


er-e-de. 


lok-e-de. 


Plural. 


Plural. 


Plural. 


dem-e-de (n). 


er-e-de (n). 


lok-e-de (n) 



350= In the fourteenth century also, in this same 
Midland dialect, the final -e of the singular was more 



41 8 English Language. 

often neglected than retained in the pronunciationo 
The disuse of it in pronunciation led to its abandon- 
ment in the spelling. In the fifteenth century it dis- 
appeared entirely, as a rule, leaving the forms as they 
are now seen, though the failure to treat the -ed as a 
separate syllable did not become the general practice 
till later. This same state of things is true of the 
preterite plural, after it had discarded the final -n, and 
also of the subjunctive forms. In this sloughing off 
of the endings, the Northern dialect had, as usual, 
taken the lead. As early as the thirteenth century, it 
not merely showed occasional instances of such forms, 
as demed and loked instead of demede, demeden, and 
lokede, lokeden ; they were even then the regular rule. 

THE PRETERITE OF THE STRONG CONJUGATION. 

351. Of the Anglo-Saxon strong verbs the inflec- 
tion of the preterite of singan, ' to sing,' of drlfan^ 
^to drive,' oi forsacan, ^ to forsake,' and o( grow an, 
^ to grow,' will be given. The following are the para- 
digms : — 

Singular. Indicative. Subjunctive. Indicative. Subjunctive. 



I. tc 


sang, 


sung-e, 


2. pU 


sung-e, 


sung-e, 


3. he 


sang. 


sung-e. 


Plural. 






I. we \ 






2. ge >- 


sung-on. 


sung-en 


3. ^t ) 







drSf, 


drif-e, 


drif-e, 


drif-e, 


drif. 


drif-e. 



drif-on. drif-en. 



The Strong Preterite. 



419 



Singular. 


Indicative, 


Subjunctive, 


I. ic 


forsoc, 


forsoc-e, 


2. pu 


forsoc-e, 


forsoc-e, 


3. he 


forsoc. 


forsoc-e« 


PluraL 






I. we-\ 






2. ge C 


• forsoc-on, 


. forsoc-en. 


3. hi ) 







Indicative. Subjunctive, 

greow, greow-e, 

greow-e, greow-e, 

greow. greow-e. 



greow-on. greow-en. 



352. There are four things to be especially noted 
in the Anglo-Saxon inflection : — 

1. The personal endings have entirely disappeared 
from the first and third persons of the singular of the 
indicative. 

2. The termination of the second person singular 
of the indicative is not -sf, as in the weak preterite, 
but is -e. 

3. The vowel of the second person singular is pre- 
cisely the same as the vowel of all the persons of the 
plural indicative, and of all the persons of both num- 
bers of the subjunctive. 

4. In the preterite of all the strong verbs repre- 
sented by singan and drifan, the vowel of the first 
and third persons of the indicative singular is different 
from that of the second person of the same number, 
and from the vowel of all the persons of the plural 
and of both numbers of the subjunctive. 

353. In certain particulars the later history of the 
inflections just given' is the same as that of the pret- 
erite of the weak conjugation. There was the same 



420 English Language. 

weakening of the ending -on into -en^ and the conse- 
quent assimilation of the plurals of the indicative and 
the subjunctive. There was the same dropping of the 
final -n, to be followed after\vard by the dropping of 
the final -e. As the history of the subjunctive is here, 
as in the present tense, involved in that of the indica- 
tive, it may be disregarded ; and the indicative pret- 
erites of the four verbs may be placed side by side, as 
they appeared in Early Enghsh. 



Singular. 


Singular. 


Singular. 


Singular. 


I. sang, 


drof, 


forsok, 


grew, 


2. sung(e), 


driv(e), 


forsok(e), 


grew(e), 


3. sang. 


drof. 


forsok. 


grew. 


Plural. 


Plural. 


Plural. 


Plural. 


I. 2. 3. sunge(n). 


drive (n). 


forsoke(n). 


grewe(n) 



354. The forms here given are those of an in- 
flection theoretically correct, rather than the ones 
invariably employed. The variations are, in fact, ex- 
ceedingly numerous. In the second person singular, 
the tendency toward uniformity began to make itself 
felt in the latter part of the fourteenth century ; and 
the -est or -st of the weak conjugation was sometimes 
substituted for the -e of the strong, so that stmge, for 
illustration, was replaced by sang{e)sf or sting{e)st. 
In the fifteenth century this became the estabhshed 
practice. It is the distinction, however, between the 
vowel of the first and third persons of the indicative 
singular and that of all the persons of the plural, 



The Strong Preterite, 421 

which is of most importance in the later history of the 
strong preterite. To this is due mainly the existence 
of the different forms which have prevailed, and to 
some extent continue to prevail still. 

355. Of the seventy-eight Anglo-Saxon strong verbs, 
which, as we have seen (241), have lasted down to our 
time, nineteen represented in the paradigms given 
above hyfoi^soc, 'forsook,' and gr'eow, 'grew,' do not 
exhibit this peculiarity ; but the remaining fifty-nine 
all possessed it, and in many instances transmitted it 
to later Enghsh. With the inflection before us, the 
origin of the varying forms that have been or are in 
use can easily be traced. Let us take, for illustration, 
the history of the preterite of the Anglo-Saxon verb 
singan, ' to sing ' ; for the comprehension of the de- 
velopment of one verb involves that of all. 

356. In the earliest period of English, when one 
wished to say / sa^tg, or sjmg, he used the form ic 
sang; when he wished to say we sang, or sung^ he 
used the expression we sungon. The plural preterite 
differed from the singular by having a termination -on, 
and by change of vowel. xAfter the break-up of 
Anglo-Saxon, the first thing to be affected was this 
ending -on. In accordance with the principle already 
so often stated, the vowel was weakened into e, and 
sungon became sungen. But, along with this weaken- 
ing of the vowel, there was also a tendency to drop 
the final -n, and sungen became sunge. The next 
steps were to drop the final -e in pronunciation, and 
then in writing; and we have, in consequence, for the 



422 English Language. 

preterite plural, the form sung. Hence there re- 
mained, as a result, two forms for the preterite, — one 
for the singular and one for the plural, — differing from 
each other only by a single letter, and that letter a 
vowel. 

357. It was inevitable that a distinction seemingly 
arbitrary, and serving no useful purpose, should break 
down; and this was what happened. The confusion 
that soon arose in the usage of an uneducated people, 
would be materially increased by the fact that the 
second person of the singular, then much more widely 
employed than at present, had a form different from that 
of the first and third persons. After the endings had 
been dropped, it was impossible that these distinctions 
should be permanently preserved. They were doubt- 
less kept up by individuals long after they had dis- 
appeared from the language of the great mass of men. 
To say / sang and we sung was, probably, vaguely felt 
by many, and loudly maintained by some, to be the 
only correct usage ; even when, in the ordinary speech, 
men had become accustomed to say indifferently, / 
sang and we sang, or / sicng and we simg. 

358. In particular verbs, also, the distinction lasted 
much later than it did in others. On this point the 
scansion of the verse makes it clear that dissyllabic, 
that is, plural, forms of certain preterites were required 
when the subject was in the plural, and monosyllabic 
ones when the subject was in the singular. An examina- 
tion of the best manuscripts of Chaucer's poetry leaves 
little doubt, that, with him, gan was regularly the sin- 



The Strong Preteidte. 423 

gular of the preterite ; gunnen,gu7tne, or gonnen,gonne^ 
the plural.^ The same statement may be made as to 
his use of shal, ^ shall/ and shiUlen or sh^clle. The 
exceptions to such use, by him, of this tense of these 
two particular words are very rare, if they can be fairly 
deemed to exist at all. Still in his time the distinction 
between the singular and the plural of the preterite of 
most verbs had broken down generally, and the forms 
originally belonging to one number were used for both. 
Not unfrequently, both forms were used indifferently 
and interchangeably. Hence arose a double set of 
preterites, such as drank and drtmk, began and begim, 
sprang and sp7'tmg, 7'ode and rid, ivrote and writ, 
which have been transmitted to Modern EngHsh. 

359. These double preterites were far more nu- 
merous in the Middle English period and at the 
beginning of Modern English than they are now. 
The tendency of the language has been steadily to 
reduce their number. Many forms, which, even in 
the early period of Modern English, were in good 
use, have now disappeared altogether, or are heard 
only in the language of poetry or of low life. Ben 
Jonson, in his grammar, gives lists of verbs that had 
two different forms for the preterite in his time ; and, 
in a large proportion of them, one form is now obso- 
lete or antiquated. Attention has already been called 

1 It was ten of the clokke he gan conclude. 

Prologue to Man of Laws Tale, line 14. 

Til that the coles gonne faste brenne. 

Canon's Yeoman's Tale, line 181. 



424 



Eno-lish Lanzii^aore. 



to a number of these belonging to Class I. (i68), of 
which this statement is particularly true. But Jonson 
also gives to climb ^ of Class III., the two preterites 
clomb and clnnb ; to fling, the preterites flang and 
flung ; to swing, the preterites swang and swung; to 
wring, the preterites wi^ang and wrung, and, in like 
manner, double forms to many others. 

360. In the majority of cases in which the verb 
reached the Modern English period with two pret- 
erites, one form came from the original singular and 
one from the original plural. This we have just seen 
exemplified in the case of sang and sung. The lan- 
guage shows, however, an increasing aversion to the 
retention of these double forms. They have been 
steadily lessening from the sixteenth century to the 
present time, and, from present indications, are des^ 
tined ultimately to disappear, at least from common 
usage. Yet there remain a number of verbs which con- 
tinue to have two forms for the preterite. They all 
belong to the third or the first class, and are given in 
the following list, with the Anglo-Saxon originals added 
in parentheses. 



Infinitive. 


Form from the Singular. 


Form from the Plural. 


drink, 


drank {dra7ic)^ 


drunk {drunc-on). 


(be) gin, 


-gan {ga7i), 


-gun (gunn-07i). 


shrink, 


shrank {scj'anc), 


shrunk (scrunc-on) 


sing, 


sang {sang^, 


sung {sung- on). 


sink, 


sank {sane), 


sunk {sunc-on). 


slink, 


slank {slanc), 


slunk {slunc-on). 



The Strong Preterite. 



425 



Infinitive. 


Form from the Singular. 


Form from the Phiral. 


spring, 


sprang {sprang), 


sprung {sprung-ori) 


stink, 


stank {stanc), 


stunk {sttmc-oit). 


swim, 


swam {sivani)y 


swum {szvumm-on). 


•ride, 


rode (rad). 


rid (rid-on). 


write, 


wrote (wrat)j 


writ Qivrit-on). 



361. Ring, when it went over to the strong conju- 
gation in the Old EngHsh period, followed the example 
of sing, and developed ra7ig and ru7ig. To this list, 
moreover, may be added did and eat, of Class V., 
which have double forms in use, though but one is 
derived from the original preterite. In the case of 
eat, the vowel-sound of the preterite is sometimes long, 
as in ate, sometimes short, as in eat; in the latter, the 
barbarous spelling, as not unusual, gives no clew to 
the pronunciation. 

362. The history of the use of the double forms 
just given, as well as of those no longer found, makes 
it clear that there has been a steadily growing pref- 
erence, especially in late Modern English,- for the 
employment of the forms derived from the singular. 
Drunk has never been so common as drank, and the 
same thing may be said, though in a far less degree, 
of begun as compared with began. But in the case of 
the two verbs of Class I., ride and write, the forms 
rid and writ, once frequently met with, are now 
almost entirely limited to the language of poetry, and 
are comparatively rare in that. During the last century 



426 English Language. 

the forms from the plural in the list given above were 
in most instances decidedly more common than those 
derived from the singular. The reverse is true of 
the present century. For illustration, Pope (1688- 
1744), in his poetical works at least, invariably uses 
rung, sung, sunk, and sprung, never rang, sang, sank^ 
and sprang. Furthermore, he has wrif as a preterite 
nine times, while he so uses wrote but once. On the 
other hand, the usage of Tennyson is precisely oppo- 
site. With him the forms from the plural are far less 
common than those from the singular, and in the case 
of some verbs are never met with at all.^ The usage 
of the representative poets of the two periods may be 
taken as fairly representing the change which has come 
over English usage in this particular respect. 

363. To what is this change due ? In spite of the 
present tendency to employ forms derived from the 
singular, it is evident that there w^as a time when there 
prevailed a preference for those derived from the 
plural. This is especially the case with the verbs of 
Class III. (190), w^hich have been the ones mainly 
under consideration. In these, the following forms 
derived from the plural are now exclusively in 
use : — 

1 This statement is based upon the Concordance to Tennyson's 
poetry, which, however, comes down no later than 1869. Accord- 
ing to it, Tennyson, up to that time, had used rang as a preterite 
20 times, sang 44 times, sprang 10, swani 3, and began 12, against 
rung 3, sung 11, and sprung, swum, and begun, each once. He had 
also used drank 13 times, shrank 3 times, and sank 20 times, 
against no instances of drunk, shru7ik, and sunk. In the case of 
Pope, the translation of Homer is excluded. 



The Strong Preterite^ 427 



I. 


bind, 


bound {biind-011). 


7- 


sting, stung {stung-on). 


2. 


cling, 


clung {clung-on^. 


8. 


swing, swung {swung-on). 


3. 


fight. 


fought {ftiht-on). 


9. 


win, won {ivunn-oii). 


4- 


grind, 


ground {grund-oii). 


10. 


wind, wound (wund-on). 


5- 


sling, 


slung {shing-oit). 


II. 


wring, v^xMYig (wrung- on). 


6. 


spin. 


spun {spunn-ofi). 







364. The general preference for forms from the 
plural of certain verbs, especially in the earlier period 
of Modern English, was largely due to the influence • 
of the past participle. In the case of verbs belonging 
to the first and third classes, these two parts of the 
inflection were almost the same in Anglo-Saxon. In 
Early English they came to be exactly the same. 
Let us take the verb writan, of Class I., and singan, 
of Class III., as exempHfying the processes which 
brought about identity of form. The preterite plural 
of the first is writon, the past participle is writen; of 
the second, the corresponding parts are sungon and 
sungen. Consequently the only difference in each 
case between the two forms is in the vowel of the 
unaccented final syllable. When of the preterite 
plural was weakened to e, even this slight distinction 
disappeared. Writen and stcngen served equally for 
the two parts under consideration. As the -n and 
the -e successively fell away, it followed that the regu- 
lar form for the past participle, and one of the two 
forms of the preterite, would come to be writ and 
sung. Such they actually were. 

365. At this point the influence of verbs of the 



428 English Language, 

weak conjugation came into play. In that conjuga- 
tion the preterite and the past participle had now 
assumed precisely the same form. Accordingly, the 
influence of this inflection was insensibly brought to 
bear upon these strong verbs, so as to make them 
conform in this respect to the practice of the vast 
majority of verbs in the language. It was natural, 
therefore, that the plural should, as a rule, be chosen, 
when the selection was Hmited to one form. This was 
• the cause that has led to its exclusive or equal adop- 
tion in twenty-eight verbs of Class III., w^hich still exist 
in our tongue. The only exception, indeed, is in the 
case of run; and this was doubtless due to the fact 
that the vowel u had made its w^ay into the present, 
where it had no right ; and so, instead of rin, that 
form became run; and, to distinguish the preterite 
from the present, the vowel of the singular was 
chosen. Yet even here in popular speech ricn is 
sometimes found as the preterite ; and from the pop- 
ular speech it has occasionally made its way into 
literature (200). It is expressly mentioned by Ben 
Jonson as being in use in his time. 

366. The influence of the past participle in deter- 
mining the choice of the plural as the form for the 
modern preterite was neither so thoroughgoing nor so 
permanent in the verbs of Class 1.(167). This was 
due to the fact that in those of them which have been 
transmitted to Modern Enghsh, the original participle 
has either been dropped entirely or the full form of 
it with the ending -en retained. In the one case it 



The Strong Preterite. 429 

has come to have the same form as the preterite, as 
in abode and shone ; in the other the retention of 
its full form makes the past participle so distinct from 
the preterite that the two parts could never be con- 
founded or assimilated. 

367. This preference for forms from the plural of 
the preterite belongs, it has been said, to the earlier 
period of Modern Englisfh. But in the latter half of 
this period, especially within the past hundred years, 
the language has largely given up the disposition to 
assimilate the preterites and past participles of verbs 
of the strong conjugation. On the contrary, it evinces 
a decided disposition to distinguish them whenever 
practicable. One evidence of this has already been 
furnished in contrasting the practice of Pope and of 
Tennyson in the use of the preterites of ring^ sing^ 
sink, and spring (362). It is by no means impossible 
that other forms from the preterite singular, such as 
span, swang, and wan, mdiy^ in process of time, be 
introduced into the Hterary speech. We see this ten- 
dency much more plainly manifested, however, in the 
increasing disposition to discard even from colloquial 
usage certain shortened forms of the past participle, 
where they are identical with the forms of the preterite. 

368. This is especially noticeable in verbs of the 
second, fourth, and fifth classes. For instance, the 
shortened past participles chose, froze, broke, stole, 
spoke, and trod can be found to a greater or less 
extent in the literature that represents the language 
of society. But they are found now far less fre- 



430 English Language, 

quently than formerly, and show signs of disappear- 
ing altogether. The tendency to distinguish between 
the two parts of the verb is made very prominent in 
the case of those of the second, fourth, and fifth 
classes, — to which the examples above cited belong, 
— because in them in most instances the vowel of the 
past participle had introduced itself into the preterite, 
largely in consequence of the desire once prevailing 
to assimilate the two forms. 

369. In the discussion of the verbs of the fourth 
and fifth classes, it was remarked that in the former, <?, 
the vowel of the past participle, made its way into the 
preterite, and displaced the a previously belonging to 
the stem (206) ; and that from this sam^e class this 
same vowel further made its way into both the pret- 
erite and past participle of some verbs of the fifth 
class (214). There are in these, consequently, two 
forms of the preterite to be found, — one derived 
from the vowel of the original preterite, and the other 
from the vowel of the passive participle. The first of 
these are, of course, the older ; but in most cases they 
have now gone out of use. The verbs of this class 
which have exhibited, or do exhibit, these double 
forms of the preterite are the following : — 





CLASS IV. 




Infinitive. 


Old Preterite. 


New Preterite. 


bear, 


bare, 


bore. 


break, 


brake. 


broke. 


shear. 


share, 


shore. 



The Stronz Preterite. 



431 



infinitive. 


Old Preterite. 


New Preterite. 


steal, 


Stale, 


Stole. 


tear, 


tare, 
CLASS V. 


tore. 


get, 


gat, 


got. 


speak, 


spake. 


spoke. 


tread. 


trad. 


trod. 


weave, 


wave, 


wove. 



The weak verb wear, which, on becoming strong^ 
entered the fourth class, developed Hkewise two pret- 
erites, ware and wo7^e (210). To this list may be 
added drive, of Class I., with its two preterites 
drove and drave. The latter form, which goes back 
to the Old EngHsh period, lasted down to the six- 
teenth century, and is still found occasionally in 
poetry. For sware, a collateral form of swore, see 
section 228. 

370, Besides the two original tenses — the present 
and the preterite — English has had from the begin- 
ning, or has developed, certain verb-phrases which 
correspond in power and use to the tenses found in 
other languages of the Indo-European family. The 
primitive Indo-European had itself five tenses ; and 
cf these, the imperfect, the future, and the aorist 
were not found in any of the earliest Teutonic tongues= 
Their places, however, have all been supplied by com- 
pound forms, which it will be best to consider under 
the titles usually given them in English grammars. 



432 English Language, 



THE FUTURE TENSE. 

371. As the Anglo-Saxon had no future tense, the 
present was usually employed to express the relation 
denoted by it. This was a pecuharity shared by our 
speech with all the Teutonic tongues ; and in all of 
them it continues to exist to the present day. Phrases 
like ' To-morrow is Sunday,' ' I am going to the city 
next week/ and numerous others, are common in 
every period of our speech, and in every great writer of 
our Hterature. But Modern English does not use the 
present for the future, by any means, as frequently as 
do several of the other Teutonic languages, in particu- 
lar the modern High German. 

372. But, even in the Anglo-Saxon period, the 
necessity for more precise and definite expression was 
beginning to be felt. The verbs sceal^ ' I am obliged,' 
^ I ought,' and wilk, ' I wish,' ' I have a mind to,' are, 
even at that early time, occasionally found joined to 
the infinitive of another verb to express its future; 
though, generally, and perhaps it is right to say in- 
variably, there was, in the employment of these, more 
or less reference to the original idea of obligation 
involved in the one, and of inclination or intention in 
the other. Still, in the Northumbrian dialect, the idea 
of simple futurity may be said at times to be distinctly 
conveyed by these auxiliaries. In the Early English 
period this became a common usage, the employment 
of which steadily increased from that time, and is now 
universal. 



The Future-Perfect Tense. 433 

373. In the sixteenth century a deUcate distinc- 
tion in the use of the auxiliaries shall and will began 
to be prevalent. It is not rigidly observed in our 
version of the Bible, and variations from the present 
use are found in writers of the Elizabethan period, 
such as Bacon and Shakspeare, though more fre- 
quently with the preterites would and should than 
with the present tenses of these verbs. In the seven- 
teenth century the distinction between the two verbs 
became firmly established ; though this statement is 
strictly true only of England, and not of the English 
spoken in Scotland or Ireland. Immigration has/ to 
a great extent, broken down the distinction in the 
United States, especially in certain portions : the Irish 
do not know it, and the Gerigcians do not acquire it. 

FUTURE-PERFECT TENSE. 

374. The future-perfect was the last of the verb- 
phrases denoting the relation of time to be formed. 
As its name denotes, it is a compound of the future 
and of the perfect. It was, consequendy, unknown to 
the Anglo-Saxon ; but it likewise rarely appeared in 
Early English, and it is certainly not common before 
Modern English.-^ Its use, indeed, is easily avoided, 
as its place can be, and often still is, taken by the 

1 The earliest instance of its employment I have chanced to notice 
is in the following extract from Caxton's RecuyeU of the HistoTy 
of Tr^j^, written between 1570 and 1575: "And I shall sende hit 
to Vlixes, and he shall here the blame vpon hym, and euery man 
shall saye that Vlixes shaU have stolen hyt, and we shall be quyte 
therof bothe two." 



434 English Language, 

compound-perfect, and even sometimes by the pres- 
ent. It was the former of these that was usually- 
employed during the Middle English period. In fact, 
the same sentence, involving the conception expressed 
by this tense, has been and can be represented in a 
variety of ways, as may be seen in the following illus- 
trations : — 

1. Before the cock crow twice, thou deniest me thrice. 

2. Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. 

3. Before the cock has crowed twice, thou shalt deny me 
thrice. 

4. Before the cock shall crow twice, thou shalt deny me 
thrice. 

5. Before the cock has crowed twice, thou shalt have denied 
me thrice. 

6. Before the cock shall have crowed twice, thou shalt have 
denied me thrice. 

The first of these expressions is the one employed 
in Anglo-Saxon; the last is found only in Modern 
Enghsh, which, however, employs all the rest. The 
second and third belong to the Old English period ; 
the fourth and fifth to the Middle Enghsh. 

THE PERFECT AND PLUPERFECT. 

375. The perfect and pluperfect are compound 
tenses, formed of the past participle, with the present 
and preterite respectively of either the verb be or have. 
The use of these forms goes back to the earliest period 
of English ; but the simple preterite was then also 



The Perfect Tense. 435 

frequently employed to represent the idea expressed 
by both. Originallyj the auxiHary have seems to have 
been joined only with transitive verbs, and be with 
intransitive ; but the employment of the former has 
as steadily increased as that of the latter has dimin- 
ished during the whole history of our speech. Even 
in Anglo-Saxon, though be was the strictly correct 
auxihary with verbs of motion, have can be found 
joined with them also, as, si^dan Kie togcedere gegan 
hcefdon (BeowulFj line 2631) ; and this has now be- 
come far the more common usage. The verb be was, 
from the beginning, added as an auxiliary to certain 
intransitive verbs denoting motion, rest, or change, 
as is gone, is set, is grown, and others ; and this 
has maintained itself down to the present time. But 
so steady has been the encroachment of have, that 
this auxiliary may now be regarded as the regular 
one to form the perfect and pluperfect in Modern 
EngHsh. 

376. Besides these forms, there are two other 
methods of inflection that need to be considered, — 
the one commonly called the progressive form, and 
the other the emphatic. 

377. The former of these is compounded of the 
tenses of the verb be and of the present participle of 
another verb, as / ajji speaking, I was speaking. The 
forms used to denote the present and the preterite go 
back to the very earhest period of the language, and 
throughout the whole history of our speech there has 
been but Httle variation in the extent or character of 



436 English Language. 

their usage. They need, therefore, no remark, save 
that, as compound tenses have been added to the sub- 
stantive verb, a full set of corresponding forms with 
the present participle have been successively added, 
as / shall or zvill be speaking, I have been speaking, I 
had been speaking. These have come to be widely 
employed. Even the form for the future-perfect, / 
shall or will have been speaking, is fully recognized in 
grammars, though it is comparatively limited in usage. 

378. The history of the so-called emphatic forms 
is far more varied. Ihey are compounded of the 
present and preterite of the verb do with the infinitive 
of another verb. These forms cannot be said to have 
come into general use until the early part of the fif- 
teenth century. In place of do, the employment of 
which then became frequent, gin had been the verb 
previously combined with the infinitive. This is 
strictly true of its preterite gan, rather than of the 
present; for while the latter is very infrequent, the 
former is very common. The verb gin is rarely found 
in Anglo-Saxon, outside of its compounds, especially 
on-ginnan. K similar statement can be made as to 
Modern English, in which it is scarcely met with save 
in the compound be-gin, 

379. As an auxiliary, however, gin occurs con- 
stantly in Early English. Its employment in that 
capacity was foreshadowed by the compound, into 
which it entered. The use of the preterite of on- 
ginnan, with an infinitive to express the relation 
denoted by the preterite, can be traced back to the 



^Do' as a Principal Verb. 437 

Anglo-Saxon/ but, in the thirteenth and fourteenth 
centuries, the infinitive with the preterite of the simple 
verb gin became the form in general use. Gan was 
strictly used as the singular, and gunne{ii) or gonne{n) 
as the plural, as has been previously pointed out in 
section 358. 

380. Do itself, at this period, when employed with 
the infinitive, ordinarily meant ' to cause ' ; in which 
usage make hdi'^ taken its place in Modern English. 
The signification conveyed by it can be exempHfied 
by the following passage from Chaucer : — 

I wot wel she wol do me slee som day 
Som neighebor. 

Prologue to Monk's Tale^ line 29. 

It is from this causative sense that many suppose that 
do and did came at last to be looked upon as having, 
with the infinitive, the force of a present and a pret- 
erite. ^ He did arrest the man ' would, in the four- 
teenth century, strictly have meant, ^ he caused the 
man to be arrested ' ; and the transition from the 
earlier usage to the modern does not seem difficult. 
But it is far more reasonable to attribute the rise of 
the idiom to another method of expression which has 
been common in Enghsh during all the periods of its 
history. This is the wide employment of the present 
and preterite of do to supply, in a following clause, the 
place of the principal verb of the preceding one. In 

1 For illustration, see the Anglo-Saxon poem of Elene, lines 303, 
306, 311. 



438 English Language. 

such a sentence, for instance, as ^ He thinks upon 
this subject as I do,' the transition by which the prin- 
cipal verb would be supplied in many cases after do is 
a natural and an easy one. As already stated, this 
usage of do has been common during all periods of 
English, and is as frequently met with in the Anglo- 
Saxon as in any other. 

381. But, whatever may be the fact as to its origin, 
this so-called emphatic form did not come into gen- 
eral use till the fifteenth century. Scattered instances 
of its employment can be found much earlier, extend- 
ing up even into Anglo-Saxon. In the thirteenth cen- 
tury it is occasionally found ; but neither during that 
nor the following century can it be said to be at all 
common. Even then the form for the preterite made 
by compounding gan with the infinitive was in alto- 
gether wider employment. The great writers who 
flourished at the beginning of the Middle English 
period — Chaucer, Langland, and Gower — rarely 
made use of the forms of do to express this relation. 
But with their immediate successors at the beginning 
of the fifteenth century, the verb so employed seems 
to have become a favorite. The joining to the infini- 
tive of do and did, especially the latter, is fairly com- 
mon in Lydgate's writings. It occurs a few times in 
the ^' Kinges Quair " of James I. of Scotland.-^ But 
by the end of the fifteenth century such a usage had 
become exceedingly frequent.^ 

382. Still it was in the EHzabethan era that the use 

'^ See page 136. ^ §§© page 156. 



^Do' as an Auxiliary Verb. 439 

of do and did with the infinitive was most widespread, 
at least in declarative sentences. In respect to these, 
a great change began to take place during the seven- 
teenth century. So marked did the aversion become 
to the employment of this auxihary m sentences of this 
kind, that it was felt to be out of place, unless used for 
the specific purpose of making the expression emphatic. 
Pope's satirical line, published in 1711, — 

While expletives their feeble aid do join, — 

would have had no special point had it been com- 
posed a century earlier. This feeling apparently con- 
tinued to increase during the eighteenth century, and 
seems to have been then much more potent than now. 
Dr. Johnson speaks of the words do and ^/V/as degrad- 
ing in the current estimate the line that admits ^them ; 
and in his Life of Cowley, he quotes from that poet 
the following passage, '^ in which," he observes, '^ every 
reader will lament to see just and noble thoughts de- 
frauded of their praise by inelegance of language " : — 

Where honor or where conscience does not bind, 

No other law shall shackle me. 

Slave to myself I ne'er will be; 
Nor shall my future actions be confined 

By my own present mind. 
Who by resolves and vows engaged does stand 

For days, that yet belong to fate, 
Does like an unthrift mortgage his estate, 

Before it falls into his hand. 

The bondman of the cloister so, 
All that he does receives does always owe. 



440 English Langunge. 

And still as Time comes in, it goes away, 

Not to enjoy but debts to pay. 
Unhappy slave, and pupil to a bell ! 
Which his hour's work as well as hours does tell; 
Unhappy till the last, the kind releasing knell. 

383. Yet, while the language still continues ordi- 
narily to restrict the use of do, and to a less extent 
that of did, in declarative sentences, it has gone to 
the other extreme in the case of interrogative and 
negative sentences. With them the employment of 
these auxiliaries has become almost universal. Men 
no longer ask under ordinary circumstances. Go you ? 
but, in its place, Do yoiL go ? Again, they do not 
usually say, You go not, but You do not go. 

THE IMPERATIVE. 

384. The imperative is found in Anglo-Saxon only 
in the second person ; but it has distinct endings for 
the singular and the plural. The form for the latter is 
precisely the same as the plural of the present indica- 
tive, as will be seen in the following examples of the 
imperative in the verbs already given : — 

Sing, sing, dem, ere, loca, 

PL singa^. dema^. eria'S. locia^. 

The distinction between the two numbers was gen- 
erally kept up until the fourteenth century. But long 
before that the plural termination -ath had been 
weakened into -eth, and of this latter the -th was not 
unfrequently dropped. From the fourteenth century 



I 



The Imperative Mode. 441 

on, the forms for the two numbers began to be used 
interchangeably. This, no doubt, was largely due to 
the increasing employment of the plural pronoun of 
the second person for addressing single individuals 
(131). As difference of form for the two numbers 
lost, in consequence, its usefulness, the ending of the 
plural went out of use in the fifteenth century.^ 

385. For the first and third persons of the impera- 
tive, the subjunctive, followed generally by the per- 
sonal pronouns, was widely employed in Anglo-Saxon. 
This usage has lasted down to modern times, and is 
found to this day, at least in poetry. Return we to 
our stcbject^ meaning ' Let us return to our subject,' is 
a method of expression which has been employed 
from the earhest period of our speech. The place of 
the first person plural of the imperative was also sup- 
plied in Anglo-Saxon by an infinitive preceded by 
utan^ which corresponds to the modern 'let us.' 
This went wholly out of use within the second century 
after the Norman Conquest. After that time the 
place of both the methods of expression just men- 
tioned came to be wholly or mainly supplied by the 
verb let, with a personal pronoun. Still, though this 
made its appearance in the thirteenth century, it can 
hardly be called very common even in the fourteenth. 
It has now become, with an infinitive complement, the 
ordinary method of representing the imperative of the 
first and third persons. 

1 See page 156, 



44^ English Language, 



THE INFINITIVE. 

386. The infinitive was formed in the primitive 
Indo-European by adding to the verbal stem the suffix 
-ana. This in all the early Teutonic languages had 
dropped the final -a, and, becoming -an, had been 
appended directly to the verb without any connective. 
Or perhaps it may more properly be said that it had 
dropped the initial a also, and that n alone was the 
sign of the infinitive ; thus ' to bind ' is, in the Anglo- 
Saxon period, represented simply by the form bind-a-n, 
made up of the root l?i7id, the connective a, and n the 
infinitive sign. In the Old Frisian and the Old Norse 
this final -?i had also disappeared, and the infinitive 
regularly terminated in -a. While the West-Saxon 
dialect clung firmly to -a7t, the Northumbrian ex- 
hibited the characteristic of the Frisian and the Norse 
in giving up -;2 ; thus the infinitive co77ie is in West- 
Saxon cunian ; in Northumbrian it is cuma, 

387. The weakening of the -an to -en speedily 
became universal not long after the Conquest. As to 
the retention or abandonment of the letter -n itself, 
usage was, however, exceedingly variable. In fact, it 
remained for several centuries ; and the Romance 
verbs that were brought into the language assumed it 
as naturally as they did the inflections of the tenses. 
It is not to be understood that it was anywhere in 
exclusive use. Infinitives without -n were for a long 
while just as common as the fuller form, if not more 
so. In the fourteenth century the disposition to drop 



The Infinitive Mode. 443 

this letter became very pronounced ; in the fifteenth, it 
had become general ; in the sixteenth, the -n was used 
only for poetic effect, or as a designed imitation of 
the archaic style. It is therefore not infrequent in 
Spenser and his followers. In fact it is apt to occur 
wherever there is an intention to reproduce ancient 
forms of expression, as in the following citation from 
one of the prologues ascribed to Gower in the Shak- 
spearian play of Pericles : — 

Though he strive 
To killen bad. 

388. In truth the whole history of this ending is 
essentially the same as that of the plural of the present 
tense, which has already been recounted (339-341). 
Like that, after the -n disappeared, the final -e which 
was left ceased to be sounded. Like that, it was in 
some instances dropped in the spelhng, in others 
retained. The latter was something fairly certain to 
take place when the connective of the original Anglo- 
Saxon verb was ia rather than a ; as, for instance, our 
word hate comes from hat-ia-n, whereas from bind-a-n 
we have bind^ and not binde. But the retention of 
the final -e is very arbitrary. 

389. The infinitive is in its nature a verbal noun, 
and in Anglo-Saxon it had a dative case, ending in 
-anne^ invariably preceded by the preposition to ; as, 
to bindanne. This is frequently called the gerundial 
infinitive. The termination in -amie speedily passed, 
after the Conquest, into -enne or -ene. At last, drop- 



444 English Language. 

ping the final -e entirely, its form became the same as 
that of the pure infinitive, originally terminating \n-an. 
Both, therefore, came to have the same ending -en, and 
naturally to share in the changes which it underwent. 
One effect of this unification of form was, that after 
the Conquest, the infinitive early began to assume 
the preposition to before it. This tendency steadily 
increased, so that at the present day the infinitive 
without this preposition is rarely found, unless pre- 
ceded by such verbs or verbal phrases as dare^ need^ 
bid, make, let, had bettei^, had sooner, had rathe}^, 
had as lief, and others, or by verbs denoting physi- 
cal or intellectual perception, Hke see, watch, and feel. 
At times the infinitive, when joined with these verbs, 
takes also the preposition before it. This was once 
more common than now, at least in the case of phrases 
like had rather, which in the literary language suc- 
ceeded had liefer. This usage may be illustrated by 
the following example : — 

Levere ich hadde to dyen on a knyf 
Than thee offende, trewe, deere wyf. 

Chaucer, Merchartfs Tale, line 919. 

390. This use of to with the pure infinitive (as to 
si can, Phcenix, line 275) is exceedingly rare in Anglo- 
Saxon ; but, as we have just seen, it has now become 
so general that, with the disappearance of the special 
gerundial form, the preposition itself has almost come 
to be regarded as belonging to the infinitive. Hence 
there has been evinced, on the part of many, a marked 



The Infinitive Mode, 445 

hostility to the tendency, which has displayed itself 
widely in Modern English, to insert an adverb between 
the preposition and the infinitive for the sake of 
greater emphasis or clearness. This practice, examples 
of which go as far back, certainly, as the fifteenth cen- 
tury,^ has now become very common. In spite of the 
opposition it encounters, there is little question that it 
will estabhsh itself permanently in the language. 

391. The gerundial infinitive, however, occasionally 
preserved a distinct form down to the end of the 
fourteenth century. It was then frequently confused 
with the present participle in -ende ; but before the 
beginning of the Modern English period it had dis- 
appeared from the language. Still though the form 
had disappeared, the sense survived. Relics of its 
original use continue to be common to this day in 
phrases such as ^ the house to let,' ^ not fit to eat,' and 
numerous others. 

392. The infinitive of the past, represented, for 
example, by to have told, is not known to the Anglo- 
Saxon. It originated in the Old Enghsh period, ap- 
parently toward its conclusion, and was frequently 
employed during the Middle English and first part of 
the Modern English period. When the verb of the 
predicate is in the past tense, there has been constantly 
exhibited a disposition on the part of the language to 
resort to this form of the infinitive. This practice 

1 E.g. Whanne ever he takith upon him for to in nei3bourli or 
brotherli manner correpte his Cristen nei3bour or brother. — Pe- 
COCK!s Repressor, Prologue (about 1450). 



446 English Language, 

goes back to the fourteenth century, as may be illus^ 
trated by the following example : — 

And with the staf she drough ay neer and neer, 
And wende han hit this Aleyn at the fulle. 

Chaucer, Reeve's Tale, line 385. 

Since that time it has been exceedingly common, and 
has in its favor the sanction of usage by the greatest 
English authors. Of late the language seems disposed 
to abandon its employment ; at least it is condemned 
by many grammarians. 

THE PARTICIPLES. 

393. The history of the past participle has already 
been given in the discussion of the two conjugations. 
In both of these the present participle was formed in 
the same way ; that is, by the adding of the suffix 
-ende to the radical syllable, as sing-e7ide, ^ ^^xnging,^ 
This termination came to vary somewhat in the three 
dialects. Using this same verb for the sake of illus- 
tration, we find the suffix appearing in Old English 
in the three following forms : — 

Southern. Midland. Northern. 

^rsxg-inde, ?>\xig-ende. sing-and(e) . 

394. In the Southern dialect, as early as the twelfth 
century the participle was often confounded with the 
gerundial infinitive in -enne. More important, how- 
ever, as regards the future of the form, was the fact 
that in the same dialect it began at the same early 



The Participles. 447 

period to assume at times the termination of the 
verbal substantive. This in Anglo-Saxon ended usually 
in -U7ig^ but sometimes in -ing. After the Norman 
Conquest, the latter became finally its exclusive form. 
It became also the form finally adopted by the present 
participle. Necessarily the only distinction at first 
between it and the verbal noun was that the former 
had in addition a final -e, 

395. From the Southern dialect, this form in -inge 
passed into the Midland, and after losing its final -e, 
was adopted as the standard form in Modern EngHsh. 
The Northern participial ending -and{e) was due to 
Scandinavian influence, but never made much head- 
way in the Midland. Still such forms as glitterand^ 
followand, comand were occasionally employed in 
these dialects, and have sometimes been used in 
Modern EngHsh by those seeking to reproduce the 
language of the past. 

396. The simple present and past participles belong 
to the earliest period of the language. On the other 
hand, the compound participles are all of later growth, 
and though useful, are none of them absolutely indis- 
pensable. The forms that have been developed will 
be illustrated by the use of the transitive verb love and 
the intransitive go. 

Being loved. Being gone. 

Having loved. Having gone. 

Having been loved. Having been gone. 

Having been loving. Having been going. 



448 English Language. 

397. These various forms seem to have come into 
existence in the order just given. The first of them, 
the composition of bei7ig with the simple past partici- 
ple, probably made its first appearance in the lan- 
guage in the fifteenth century ; but it did not become 
current till the earlier part of the sixteenth. Even 
then it is not often met with, though in this respect 
there is great difference in writers of that time. It 
was not until the latter half of that century that the 
compounds of having with the past participle came 
much into use. Necessarily the compounds with hav- 
ing been were still later. Of these, the joining of this 
compound to the past participle seems to have long 
preceded its joining to the present participle ; that is 
to say, such participial phrases as having been gone 
were earlier, as even now they are much more com- 
mon, than those represented by having been going. 
The former were certainly in use in the latter half of 
the sixteenth century. On the other hand, the com- 
position of being with the present participle, though 
perfectly legitimate in theory, has scarcely been known 
in practice. Expressions like being goings found in 
Shakspeare's " Cymbeline " (act iii. scene 6), are very 
rare. 

PASSIVE FORMATIONS. 

398. The primitive Indo-European tongue had two 
voices, — the active, and the middle or reflexive, 
which, from the very beginning, seems to have as- 
sumed the functions of the voice we call the passive. 



The Passive Voice. 449 

The use of the reflexive to do the office of the passive 
is common enough in many modern tongues where 
the reflexive pronoun is not united with the verb, nor 
changed at all in form ; and how easy the transition is 
in sense can be shown in our own speech by many 
familiar examples. I pcrsicade myself, for illustration, 
differs very slightly, and in some cases not at all, from 
/ am persuaded. It is from the reflexive that the 
passive has been developed in the history of the lan- 
guages of the Indo-European family. 

399. But in the Teutonic branch only one of these 
voices can be said to exist. The Gothic, indeed, had 
a middle, which, with some few exceptions, was used 
in a passive sense ; but it was only found in the present 
tense, and in that the persons were much confounded. 
These and other signs show, that, at the time of the 
translation of the Bible by Ulfilas, the form for this 
voice was going out of use. In the other Teutonic 
tongues, occasional traces of a passive, which must 
once have existed, can be found ; but they are few 
in number and slight in importance. The only one 
which our earliest speech retained was hatte, meaning 
equally ' I am called,' or, ^ I was called.' 

400. In all of the early tongues of the Ten tonic 
branch, the loss of the form was supplied by com- 
pounding the passive participle with the present and 
preterite of verbs corresponding in meaning to our 
verbs be and become. In Anglo-Saxon these verbs 
were three: blon and wesan, both meaning ^to be,' 
and weorpan, meaning ^to become.' The last verb has 



450 English Language. 

now gone out of use in our speech ; but it existed as 
an independent verb down to the beginning of the 
Modern English period/ though almost always in the 
phrase woe worth, meaning ^woe be.' In German, 
the corresponding form we7^de7i was chosen as the 
auxiliary to form the passive ; but in EngHsh it was 
never common after the Anglo-Saxon period, and 
indeed cannot be said to have been common during 
it. In Old English the formation of the passive with 
the present and preterite of wesan and bloii became 
early predominant, and wo7'the{ji) gradually went out 
of use. 

401. When the forms of worthe{?i), 'to become,' 
had been given up, those of the substantive verb 
represented by am, was, and be were the only ones 
left to express the passive. It was, from the nature 
of things, an office for which they were ill calculated ; 
for, with a verb which expresses a simple action, and 
not a continuous state, the compounding of its past 
participle with the present tense of the substantive 
verb did not denote something actually taking place, 
but something which had taken place. The field is 
reaped corresponds in form to the 7nan is hated ; 
but it does not correspond in the sense given to the 
verbal phrase. With the latter expression there is 
existing action impHed ; in the former, only a com- 
pleted result. This was a difficulty inherent in the 
employment of this form. To avoid it, the language 

1 What will worth, what will be the end of this man ? 

Latimer, Lent Sermons (Arber's reprint, page 120), 



The Passive Voice. 451 

resorted to expedients of all kinds : it changed the 
construction of the sentence, it employed various cir- 
cumlocutions, and at last, in the eighteenth century, 
it adopted verb-phrases made up of the present and 
preterite of be and the compound passive participle. 
The more detailed history of the passive formations 
in such expressions as the field is being 7'eaped has 
already been given, and need not be repeated here.^ 
As stated there, the use of these forms, like that of 
the emphatic forms with do and did, is confined to 
the present and the preterite tense. 

402. The discussion of the use of the passive 
belongs strictly to syntax, and finds properly no place 
here ; and it is only necessary to repeat what has 
been previously said, that in the freedom with which, 
and in the extent to which, the passive is employed, 
English has gone far beyond other cultivated tongues. 
Such phrases as he was given a book, he was told the 
truth, and the like, run back to the Middle English 
period, and occur in all the great writers of our tongue. 
Expressions like the one in the following linC; — 

Be not de7iied access, stand at her doors, 

Shakspeare, Twelfth Night, act i. sc. 4, — 

are often ignorantly condemned by those who are 
unaware that these exemplify one of the most thor- 

1 See pages 170-173. The employment of this formation was 
foreshadowed in the seventeenth century. In a tragedy of Thomas 
Porter's, first published in 1663, occur the following lines : — 
The fear of theeves is worse than the loss we can 
Sustain by them ; were still a being roFd. 

The Villam, ed. of 1670, page 30. 



452 English Language, 

oughly established and characteristic idioms of the 
English language. 

PRETERITE-PRESENT VERBS. 

403. In all the early Teutonic tongues, there were 
a number of strong verbs whose preterite tense had 
assumed the signification of a present ; and along 
with this, and perhaps in consequence of it, the 
original present tense had gone entirely out of use. 
A familiar illustration of this assumption by a past 
tense of a present meaning can be seen in the collo- 
quial use in Modern English of / have got in the sense 
of ' I have,' ' I possess.' 

404. The process, however, had not stopped at the 
point indicated by this common expression. When 
the original present had disappeared, the original pret- 
erite, which had assumed entirely the signification of 
a new present, went on to develop a new past tense. 
This latter was always of the weak conjugation. So, 
in the inflection of the new present tense, the peculi- 
arities of the preterite of the strong conjugation are 
found ; while in the new preterite the inflection is the 
one which regularly characterizes the weak verbs. 

405. In Anglo-Saxon there were twelve of these 
verbs. Of these, seven continue to exist in some form, 
or have left traces of themselves to some extent in 
Modern English. As each has had a history of its 
own, each will necessarily be treated of by itself, so 
far as the changes which it has undergone have not 
already been discussed in the account given in the 



The Preterite-Present Verbs. 453 

previous pages of the inflection of the verb. Only the 
forms of the present and the preterite indicative are 
here laid down. The subjunctive has nothing about 
its history different from that of other verbs, and the 
other parts are developed in some of these verbs, and 
absent in others. It is, however, to be added that 
the infinitive forms here given are in several instances 
purely hypothetical. 

406. To Class I. of the strong verbs (167) belong 
the first two : — 

(i) Agan, 

This has given rise to both a defective and a regular 
weak verb in Modern English. The defective verb 
ought is in its origin the new weak preterite of this 
preterite-present verb ; and its relations can only 
be comprehended clearly by examining the original 
forms. 



Sing. 


Present. 




Preterite. 


I. 


ag, ah, I own. 


, possess, 


ahte, ought. 


2. 


aht, ahst, 




ahtest, 


3. 


5h. 




ahte. 


PI. 








I, 2, 3. 


agon. 




ahton. 



407. By comparing the Anglo-Saxon forms with 
those of its class, it will be seen that, even in the 
earhest period, this verb had deviated from the regular 
inflection ; for the vowel of the plural had become 
the same as the singular, and we have agon instead of 



454 Eiiglish Language. 

igon. The present forms continued to be employed 
in the Early English period, but were gradually sup- 
planted by the preterite. From the infinitive the 
word owe came into use, and, after having for a while 
ought as its preterite, developed the regular form 
07ved, The general signification of ^ possess,' expressed 
by this verb, came also to be limited largely to the 
possession of debts. In this sense of pecuniary obli- 
gation the preterite owed was in time employed by 
preference. This left the older preterite oicght to 
convey exclusively the idea of moral obhgation or of 
fitness. To this one signification, essentially, it is now 
confined. It is also hmited to this one tense ; though 
the language of the uneducated shows a constant ten- 
dency to treat ought as a past participle, and the 
verbal phrase had ought is regularly employed by 
them. From the original past participle agen, the 
adjective own has been derived. 

(2) Wita7i, 

408. The forms of this verb have given rise to 
much misunderstanding. All difficulties connected with 
it disappear at once on an examination of the original 
inflection : — 



Sing. 


Present. 


Preterite. 


I. 


wat, wot, 


wiste, wistf 


2. 


wast, 


wistest, 


3- 


wat. 


wiste. 


PI. 






I, 2, 3. 


witon. 


wiston. 



The Pretcrite-Preseiit Verbs. 455 

409. Of this verb, the infinitive, to wit, still exists in 
Modern English, especially in legal phraseology, but 
used in the adverbial sense of * namely/ Another 
form of it, weet, is occasionally found in our earlier 
poetry. The present and preterite, though Httle em- 
ployed, are still retained, mainly through their occur- 
rence in the Bible. The plural of the present, zvite{n), 
lasted down to the fifteenth century, but wot of the 
singular had largely taken its place considerably before 
that period; and after it, the latter form was almost 
invariably used of both numbers. 

410. In the sixteenth century 7£/<?/ farther developed 
itself as a regular verb of the w^eak conjugation, hav- 
ing an infinitive wot, and in the present tense singular, 
wot, wottest, wotteth or wots, the preterite wotted, 
and the present participle wotting. These forms did 
not permanently estabhsh themselves, nor were they 
ever as common as the older and correcter forms. 
The following are examples : — 

Your grace may sit secure, if none but we 
Do wot of your abode. 

Marlowe, Edward II., act iv. so. 6. 

Thou wottest not what thou sayest. 

Peele, Edwai'd I (ed. of 1861, page 382). 

No man wotteth better what he should do and say. 

More, Edward V. (reprint of 181 2, page 510). 

The ploughman little wots to turn the pen. 

Lodge, Rosalynd, 



45 6 English Langnage. 

And why he left your court, the gods themselves, 
Wotting no more than I, are ignorant. 

Shakspeare, Winter's Tale^ act. iii. so. Z 

I which wotted htst 
His wretched drifts and all his cursed case. 

Sackville, Complaint of Buckingha7?i, line 710. 

411. The Early English present participle witting 
is found occasionally in the Modern English period, 
and is still preserved in the adverb unwittingly. The 
similar past participle wist was never very common 
outside of the phrase ^Had I wist/ and is now obso- 
lete or archaic. The negative verbs not, from ne wot, 
and niste, from 7ie wiste, died out in the Middle 
English period. As might be expected, as the word 
wot became obsolescent, its character was sometimes 
mistaken, and it was used with a preterite meaning 
instead of a present, as in the following quotation 
from Bunyan's ^^ Pilgrim's Progress " : — 

There he stood still, and he wot not what to do. 

(Ed. of 1678, page 18.) 

412. Very curiously, a singular blunder produced a 
new verb as the supposed present of wist. The old 
past participle of witan was gewiss, which became an 
adjective in Anglo-Saxon, with the meaning of ^cer- 
tain.' It has already been stated that the Anglo-Saxon 
prefix ^^ was turned, in Early English^ into y or i (301) . 
The Anglo-Saxon d.d]ect\Yt ge7ms {s) , ^certain,' accord- 
ingly became in Early English the adverb iwis, or 
ywis, ^ certainly.' In the sixteenth century this was 



The Preterite-Present Verbs, 457 

frequently printed Iwis, or / wis. As a consequence, 
the capital /was supposed to be the personal pronoun, 
instead of the modern representative of the prefix ge ; 
and wis was accordingly assumed to be a verb, and 
regarded as the present of wist. Wis has rarely, if 
ever, been used outside of the phrase / wis^ which is, 
however, by no means uncommon in poetry, even in 
our own day. A verb wisse{n), wis, — from Anglo- 
Saxon wlssian, 'to show/ 'to instruct,' — died out in 
the Middle English period, and has no connection 
with the present word. 

413. To the third class of verbs of the strong con- 
jugation (189) belong two preterite-presents. The 
first is : — 

(3) Cunnan. 

The following is the inflection of the verb in Anglo- 



Saxon : — 






Sing. 


Present. 


Preterite. 


I. 


can(n), can^ 


cu'Se, couldy 


2. 


canst, 


cii'Sest, 


3. 


can(n). 


cii'Se. 


PI. 






I, 2, 3. 


cunnon. 


cu^on. 



414. It will be seen, that, even in the Anglo-Saxon, 
the weak termination of the second person, canst, had 
taken the place of the regular strong form, cunne. In 
Early English coude is found alongside of coiithe as a 
form for the preterite, and in process of time sup- 



45 8 English Langtiage. 

planted the earlier form. Into this coud{e) in the 
sixteenth century an / was inserted, by a false analogy 
with would and should ; but it has never been pro- 
nounced. The verb never had a present participle, 
and its past cud — in Early English couth or coud — 
has gone out of use ; though, as an adjective, it sur- 
vives in the last syllable of un-couth. The infinitive 
has also disappeared, though it was common in the 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in the form conne, 
and in the sense of ^to be able.' In the form can, it 
still continued to exist in the seventeenth century, 
though as an archaism, and is sometimes met with 
even in our own day. Examples are : — 

Ne no man elles shal me co7tne espye. 

Chaucer, Legend of Good Women^ line 2044. 

In will the best condicion is not to will, the second not to can. 
Bacon, Essays, ed. of 1623. (Of Great Place.) 

415. Can as an independent verb survives, how- 
ever, in the form con, ^to learn,' and is regularly 
inflected according to the weak conjugation, as, for 
example, ' He has conned his lesson.' Furthermore, 
in the Northern dialect, there came into frequent use 
a form can, which was in its origin a mere variant of 
gan, and used hke that with the infinitive to represent 
the preterite (378). Later, it sometimes came to be 
confounded with the present-preterite can, and, in 
consequence, the past tense couthe or coude of that 
verb was erroneously used in the sense of ^ did.* 



The Preterite-Present Verbs, 459 

416. (4) Dtirran, 

Sing. Present. Preterite, 

1. dear, dare, dorste, durst, 

2. dearst, dorstest, • 

3. dear. dorste. 

PI. 
I, 2, 3. durron. dorston. 

The presence in Anglo-Saxon of the infinitive of 
this verb is doubtful. During that period it will be 
observed that the original form durre of the second 
person had been supplanted by dearst. 

417. i\s the existing present is in its origin a pret- 
erite, the third person of the singular is precisely the 
same as the first ; but the tendency to make it con- 
form to the regular inflection, and form its third 
person in -s, has been powerful since the beginning 
of Modern English. Both forms, he dare and he 
dares, have flourished side by side during the last 
three centuries. The verb, furthermore, shows a 
disposition to go over entirely to the regular form 
of the weak conjugation. The old, irregular, weak 
preterite dtii'st is now far less common than formerly, 
and in the sense of ^ to challenge, defy,' is never em- 
ployed at all. This form durst made its way at one 
time into the past participle. In all of its meanings, 
indeed, dare is now frequently inflected regularly, and 
the new forms have largely supplanted the old. Dared 
made its appearance as early, certainly, as the end of 
the sixteenth century, and its employment has steadily 
increased from that time. 



460 English LangiLage, 

418. To the fourth class of strong verbs (205) 
belongs : — 

(s) Sculan, 

Sing. Present. Preterite. 

1. sceal, shally sc(e)olde, should^ 

2. scealt, sc(e) oldest, 

3. sceal. sc(e)olde. 
PL 

I, 2, 3. sculon. sc(e)oldon. 

419. In Anglo-Saxon, ic sceal meant ordinarily •'I 
am under obligation/ ^ I ought/ ' I must.' Its transi- 
tion to express the future has already been pointed 
out in the account of that tense (372). It has re- 
mained throughout its history faithful, comparatively 
speaking, to the Anglo-Saxon form ; and the distinc- 
tion between the vowel of the singular^ and of the 
plural was kept up, at least by some writers, as late 
as the fifteenth century. In fact, this verb preserved 
this distinction after most of the other strong pret- 
erites had abandoned it ; shal and shul{en) being, 
in the fourteenth century, the respective methods 
usually found of denoting the singular and the plural. 
The Northern dialect sometimes contracted this verb. 
In that, such forms as Ise, ' I shall,' and others 
of a similar character, not unfrequently make their 
appearance. 

420. To the fifth class of strong verbs (211) 
belongs : — 







(6) Magan, 


Sing. 


Present. 


Preterite. 


I. 


mseg, may 


meahte 
' mihte 




meaht ^ 
miht J' 


meahtest 


2. 


mihtest 


3. 


maeg. 


meahte 
mihte 


PI. 






I, 2, 3. 


magon. 


meahton 
mihton 



The Preterite-Present Vei'bs, 461 



I , might, 

}■ 
}■ 

}■ 

421. J/"^^ meant, in Anglo-Saxon, ^I have power/ 
' I am able/ but in this signification its place has been 
taken by ca7i. The infinitive magan or miigan is not 
found in Anglo-Saxon, but in Early EngHsh appears 
in various forms, of which mowe{n) may be taken 
as the representative, as seen in the following 
example^ ; — 

For who is that ne wolde hire glorifie, 
To mowen swich a knight don Hve or die. 

Chaucer, Troilus and Cryseyde^ ii., 1594. 

Precisely similar forms became estabhshed for the 
present tense, as : — 

Right so mowe ye out of myn herte bringe, 
Swich vois, right as you list, to laughe or pleyne. 

Chaucer, Legend of Good WomeUi line 92. 

The second person singular of the present thou might 
lasted down to the Middle EngUsh period, and was 



462 English Language. 

not entirely supplanted by mayst until the fifteenth 
century. Mought, the Early EngHsh variant of mighty 
has now become dialectic. 

422. To the sixth class of strong verbs (221) 
belongs : — 

(7) Motan, 



Sing. 


Present, 


Preterite. 


I. 


mot, 77iote^ 


moste, musty 


2. 


most, 


mostest, 


3. 


mot. 


moste. 


PI. 






I, 2, 3. 


moton. 


moston. 



423. The infinitive is not met with either in Anglo- 
Saxon or later EngHsh, and the verb itself has had a 
history different from most of the others. It existed 
in full vigor down to the Middle English period. In 
that the present mot was used in the two senses of may 
and of must. 

Therfore, in stede of wepynge and preyeres, 
Men moot yeve silver to the poore freres. 

Chaucer, Prologue to Canterbury Tales, line 232. 

But al 7?iot ben assayed, hoot and cold, 
A man 7?iot ben a fool, or yong or old. 

Ib.y Knighfs Tale, line 953. 

In the sense of may, the place of i7iot was taken by 
the preceding verb mceg, and in the sense of uiust, its 
own weak preterite supplanted it, and has now come 
to be used both as a present and a preterite. Must 



The Preterite-Present 'Verbs. 463 

has now no inflection whatever, and to indicate certain 
preterite relations the language has had recourse to 
verb- phrases based upon to be obliged. The original 
mot has practically disappeared from Modern Enghsh. 
Though it is occasionally heard, it is hmited to a few 
phrases, such as so mote it be, or to imitations of the 
archaic style. 

424. Besides these, relics of two other Anglo-Saxon 
preterite-present verbs lasted down to a comparatively 
late period. One of these is ^arf, ' I need,' with its 
weak preterite doifte. This verb, in Early Enghsh, 
frequently dropped the /, probably owing to the 
confusion which prevailed to some extent between it 
and dare. It was generally used impersonally with a 
dependent dative, as will be seen in the following 
example : — 

And therfore this proverbe is seyd ful sooth, 
Hym thar nat wene wel that yvele dooth. 

Chaucer, Reeve's Tale, line 400. 

The confusion that existed between this verb and 
dare is exemplified in the use of the preterite in the 
following line : — 

Thou thruste nevere han the more fere. 

Chaucer, Troilus and Cryseyde^ iii., 572. 

Here several manuscripts have durste, though the 
context requires the sense of ' needest.' 

425. The other verb is man, or moUy ^I intend/ 
with its weak preterite 7?tunde, This verb has lasted 



464 E^iglish Language, 

down to the Modern English period. It has been 
especially common in the Northern dialect in the 
forms motm, viaim, and 7?iun, and its prevalence in 
that was largely due to the influence of the Old Norse 
munu. With the infinitive it frequently served as a 
verbal phrase equivalent to the future, and can often 
be rendered by ^am to/ ^am about to/ passing over 
into the sense of obligation. Examples are : — 

I mun be maried a Sunday. 
Ralph Roister Doister (Arber's reprint, page 87). 

A gentleman mun show himself like a gentleman. 

Ben Jonson, Every Man in his Humor, act i. sc. I. 

426. To this list of preterite-present verbs of the 
early language that still survive, in some form, to our 
day, there is aUied one, which, even in its original 
form, presents great irregularities. This is willan, one 
of the auxiharies now used by us to express the future. 
It was originally a subjunctive of the preterite, but 
had discarded some of the forms belonging to the 
subjunctive, and taken those of the indicative in 
their place. 

Willan, 



sing. 


Present. 




Preterite. 


I. 


wille, wile, 


will, 


wolde, would^ 


2. 


wilt, 




woldest, 


3. 


wille, wile. 




wolde. 


PI. 








I, 2, 3. 


willa^. 




woldoh. 



The Preterite-Present Verbs. 465 

427. In Early English, forms of the present with 
instead of / were common, and zuol and wil stood side 
by side until the fifteenth century. Wol^ indeed, is 
constantly met with in the literary language of the 
fourteenth century, though it never succeeded in driv- 
ing out wil. For example : — 

And at a knight than wol I first biginne. 

Chaucer, Prologue to Canterbury Tales, line 42. 

A relic of this once frequent use of wol has been pre- 
served in the colloquial form won't. This is a con- 
traction of wol not, which was itself sometimes found 
in the forms wonnot or wo7iot. From this the transi- 
tion to won't was easy. 

428. A negative form of this verb, nille, Svill not,' 
nolde, ^ would not,' was in existence during all periods 
of the language down to the beginning of Modern Eng- 
lish. Occasional instances of its occurrence can be 
found later, though usually it is employed in expres- 
sions like will he, nill he, Svill he, or will he not,' 
where there is a designed contrast with the simple 
verb; such as is exemplified in Shakspeare's ^^ Taming 
of the Shrew," act ii. scene i : — 

Will you, nill you, I will marry you. 

The colloquial though Httle used willy, nilly still pre- 
serves the negative verb. 

429. Apparently, by analogy with the preterite- 
present verbs, the verb need frequently drops the -s 
of the third person singular of the present tense when 



466 English Language. 

followed by the infinitive of another verb. ^ He need 
not do it/ for instance, is a method of expression 
much more common than ' he needs not do it.' This 
usage certainly goes back to the beginning of the 
sixteenth century, and is perhaps earlier. 

430. Beside the preterite-present verbs, there are 
three others which deserve special mention. One of 
these is the verb do, 

Don. 

Present. Preterite. 

1. do, dyde, 

2. dest, dydest, 

3. de^S. dyde. 

I, 2, 3. do's. dydon. 

431. The modern forms exhibit little variation from 
the Anglo-Saxon, except that in the second and third 
persons of the present singular they have abandoned 
the original vowel-variation. The Early English doth, 
based upon the Anglo-Saxon dod, lasted as a present 
plural into the Modern English period (343). It is 
found frequently in Shakspeare, though in modern 
editions it is usually changed, without notice, into the 
standard form do. The second person singular doest 
is used as a principal verb, and not as an auxiliary, 
whereas the other form dost is used regularly as an 
auxiliary, rarely as a principal verb. A similar state- 
ment may be made of the two forms in -th of the 
third person, doeth and doth. 



The Irregular Verb ^ Go' 467 

432. Gan, 

Present. Preterite. 

1. ga, code, 

2. gaest, eodest, 

3. gse"^. code. 

I, 2, 3. ga^. eodon. 

433. From the paradigm given above, it will be seen 
that the verb go, even in Anglo-Saxon, had supplied its 
preterite by a form taken from another stem. Eode 
continued to be used during the Old English period, 
and appeared usually in the form yede, and occasionally 
yode ; but early in the Middle English period it showed 
clear signs of falling into disuse. It occurs but three 
times in Chaucer, always in the form yede (72), as, foi 
example : — 

Troilus ... in his chaumber sit, and hath abyden 
Til two or three of his messagers yeden 
For Pandarus. 

Troilus and Cryseyde, ii., 937. 

It is,'howeverj more common in Langland, and occa- 
sionally appears in the poetry of the fifteenth century. 

434. In the sixteenth century the existence of the 
two forms yede and yode led to a curious error on the 
part of those authors who were seeking to reproduce 
the diction of the past. Yede, often spelled yeed or 
ye ad, was treated as an infinitive or present, of which 
yode was the preterite. Thus Sackville, in the '' In- 
duction to the Mirror for Magistrates," has the fol- 
lowing lines : — 



468 English Language, 

Here enter' d we, 2,nd, yeding iox^^ anon 
An horrible loathly lake we might discern. 

Line 196. 

Similar usage can be found in Spenser, as follows : — 

Then bad the knight his lady yede aloof. 

Faerie Queene^ I., xi., 5. 

So long he yode, yet no adventure found, 
Which Fame of her shrill trompet worthy reedes. 

lb., II., vii., 2. 

435. To supply the place of eode, recourse was 
had later to another Anglo-Saxon verb, wendan, which 
had wende and went as preterite and past participle. 
To this verb strictly belong the compound tenses / 
have went, I had went, which are sometimes met with 
late in the Middle English period.^ The original 
preterite was wende or wente. The latter became the 
regular form in Old English, and in its shortened 
form went was at last adopted as the preterite of go 
in place of yede. The participle went also disap- 
peared ; and the verb wenden, which had now become 
wend by the dropping of the final -en, developed in 
its turn the regular form wended, 

436. Gangan, a fuller form of this verb, can be 
found in the Anglo-Saxon period with a preterite 
geong. The present tense of gan adopted throughout 
in Old English the vowel of the first person, though 

iThey occur occasionally much later, e.g., "As if the scholars 
had wejit from Cambridge to Northampton." — Diary of Thomas 
Hearne, May 9, 1730. 



The Substantive Verb. 469 

even in Middle English the form geth, ^ goes/ occa- 
sionally makes its appearance, as will be seen by the 
following example : — 

For vengeaunce of his sones deth 
None other grace ther ne geth. 

GowER, Confessio Ajjtantis, Book V. 

Go, like do, was frequently used in the Midland dia- 
lect as a past participle. The past participle of the 
compound agan lost in Old English its participial use, 
and came to be employed as an adjective, or adverb, 
and still survives in ago or agone. 

437. Finally, there remains the substantive verb. 
In its various parts three roots have been, and still 
are, represented. In the form of the verb regularly 
used in Anglo-Saxon, the root es is found in the pres- 
ent tense ; the root wes in the preterite, the infinitive, 
and the present participle. The root beu furnished 
additional and independent forms for the present, the 
infinitive, and the present participle. 

438. Of this most important of verbs, it is desirable 
to give the history of most of the parts, and each will 
be considered separately. We begin with the two 
present tenses. 



Sing. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


I. 


eom, 






Sie, 


beo(m)5 


beo, 


2. 


cart, 






sie, 


bist, 


beo, 


3. 


is. 






sie. 


bi«. 


beo. 


PI. 














I, 2, 3. 


, sind, 


sindon. 


sin. 


bio's. 


beon. 



470 hnglish Language, 

439. The forms of the indicative singular, earn, eart, 
is, have been preserved, with Httle change, through 
all the periods of the language. The plural sind, or 
sindon, however, did not last long beyond the Anglo- 
Saxon period, nor did the subjunctive sle. In the 
Northumbrian dialect am was the form corresponding 
to the West-Saxon eo7n, and in the plural of that 
dialect earoit, or a7^07i, was found side by side with 
sind, or sindon. Earon has also been pointed out as 
occurring in a very few instances in West-Saxon. 
Still it was to the Northern dialect, aided by its exclu- 
sive use in the language of the Scandinavian invaders 
of England, that we owe the general adoption into 
our tongue of a7^e as the plural of the present tense. 
It was a gradual process. When sind was given up, 
the plural be, in the forms beth, ben, and be, took its 
place in the dialect of the South and of the Midland. 
This continued to be the case for several centuries. 
Even at the beginning of the Middle EngUsh period, 
are was far from common in the Midland dialect. 
Chaucer almost invariably uses be or ben as the 
plural of the present; and the same remark is true 
of Langland and Gower, though are is more common 
with them than with Chaucer. The Northern writers, 
however, commonly use are. From them the practice 
extended widely in the latter part of the fifteenth 
century, and became thoroughly established in the 
sixteenth. 

440. Be, which, during the Anglo-Saxon period, 
was largely used as a future, maintained itself firmly 



I 



The Stibstantive Vei^b. 47 1 

as the regular substantive verb in the Southern dia- 
lect. In the singular form, he, beesf, l?elh, it not only 
continues to this day to be heard in popular or 
dialectic speech, but at various periods has not unfre- 
quently made its way into the language of Hterature. 
The following paradigm will show the most common 
forms the inflection of its present tense assumed in 
the various dialects : — 

1. be, 

2. beest, 

3. beth, bes. 

I, 2, 3. beth, ben, bin, be, bes. 

441. The plural be, furthermore, was constantly 
used as an indicative form down to the seventeenth 
century, and even later, and is still occasionally em- 
ployed in poetry, especially in the phrase there be. 
The tendency showed itself, in the sixteenth century, 
to hmit the verb be to the subjunctive, and this has 
now become the established general rule.^ The plural 
forms ben and bin have also been erroneously re- 
garded by some writers as singular, as in the fol- 
lowing passage : — 

Of tragic muses shepherds con no skill; 
Enough is them, if Cupid ben displeased, 
To sing his praise on slender, oaten pipe.^ 

This error has never, however, been common. . 

1 See page 167. 

2 Peele, Arraignment of Paris, act iv. so. I. 



4/2 English Language. 

442. The preterite of the substantive verb is the 
preterite of a strong verb, of Class V. (219), partially 
obsolete in Anglo-Saxon, but fully preserved in Gothic. 
It was thus inflected : — 



Sing. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


I. 


Wa3S, 


w^re, 


2. 


wsere, 


wsere, 


3. 


wses. 


W3ere. 


PI. 






I, 2, 3. 


w8eron 


w^ren. 



443. This is the only preterite which has retained 
in Modern English the vowel-variation once distin- 
guishing from the first and third persons of the in- 
dicative singular, the three persons of the plural, the 
second person of the singular, and all the persons of 
the subjunctive. It also exhibits clearly what was 
found in several Anglo-Saxon verbs, — the transition 
of the letter s into r, so that, instead of saying was 
or wese in the plural, we say were (14). During the 
Middle EngUsh period this preterite presented the 
following inflections : — 



Sing. 


Indicative. 


Subjunctive. 


I. 


was, 


were, 


2. 


were, 


were, 


3. 


was. 


were. 


PI. 






,2,3. 


were(n). 


were(n) 



444. These forms have remained substantially un- 
changed during all the periods of the English language. 



TJie Substantive Verb, 473 

An exception is to be made in the case of the second 
person singular, which, as is seen, is strictly were ; 
and, in fact, thotc were has been always in use in 
poetry. But the abandonment of vowel-change in the 
second person of the preterite of strong verbs natu- 
rally led to the general disuse of this form. As early, 
certainly, as the Middle EngHsh period the form wast 
had appeared, as the following extract from the Wy- 
cliffiite translation of the Bible shows : — 

Whanne sche hadde seyn Petre warmynge him, sche bihold- 
inge him seith, And thou wast ^ with Jhesu of Nazareth. 

Mark xiv. 67. 

The way for this form had been previously prepared 
by the not unfrequent employment in Old English of 
was for the second person. Still it was not till the 
sixteenth century that wast came into much use. 
From that time on, it tended gradually to supplant 
the original form, especially in the language of prose. 

445. But along with were and wast there sprang 
up, probably in the early part of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, a new form, wert, which apparently was devel- 
oped after the analogy oi shal-t, wil-t, and ar-t. This 
is met with frequently in the Elizabethan dramatists, 
and seems to have been then preferred by a few 
writers to wast It has always been common in 
poetry. To that kind of composition it, like were, is 
in truth now mainly confined ; but this may be due to 

1 Even here other MSS., as well as Purvey's recension, have 
were. 



474 English Language. 

the fact that the second person itself of the verb is 
little used in prose. 

446. The infinitives wesan and blon occur not 
unfrequently during the i\nglo-Saxon period. By the 
end of it the former had disappeared, and the latter 
came into so general use that it has given its name to 
the substantive verb. The same statement is true of 
the present participles wesende and beonde, and the 
imperatives wes and b'eo. In each instance the forms 
of wesaii were early supplanted by those of b'eon. 
None of these verbal roots exhibited a past participle 
during the Anglo-Saxon period. The existing form 
been, which originated in the Old Enghsh period, 
usually appeared for a long time as y-be, i-be, or 
simply be. 

447. Dialectic and peculiar forms of the various 
parts of the substantive verb are to be found during 
all periods of its history. These it is neither possible 
nor desirable to enumerate here. One thing, how- 
ever, is worthy of special mention. In some of the 
Northern dialects, is was early used for all persons of 
the present singular and plural, and was for the same 
numbers and persons of the preterite. Examples of 
such employment have been given in Chaucer's imi- 
tation of the speech of the North.^ From that quar- 
ter is sometimes made its way into the language of 
literature, especially in the writings of the Elizabethan 
dramatists. The following examples from Shakspeare 
will illustrate the practice : — 

1 See page 120, 



The Substantive Verb. 475 

He does smile his face into more lines than is in the new 
map with the augmentation of the Indies. 

Twelfth Nighty act iii. sc. 2. 

What manners is in this ? 

Ro7neo and Juliet^ act v. sc. 3. 

This usage is very common, when the substantive 
verb is followed by its subject, and accompanied 
(generally preceded) by hei-e^ where, but especially 
the^r. With this last the singular verb seems to have 
been generally and perhaps universally employed in 
Elizabethan dramatic literature. For example : — 

Thou think'st there is no more such shapes as he. 

Tempest^ act i. sc. 2. 

There is tears for his love. 

Julius CcEsar^ act iii. sc. 2. 

This method of expression has indeed lasted down 
to our own time, and is very common in colloquial 
speech. 

448. A similar usage of was has been less preva- 
lent,-^ but its employment in the plural with a personal 
pronoun as subject has been at times far more so. 
This is true at least of the second person, as used dur- 
ing the eighteenth century. You was, instead o{ you 
were, became then so common, that it seemed merely 
a question of time when the latter would disappear 

1 All things was quiet. 
More, Richard III. (reprint of 1812, page 541). 



4/6 English Language. 

altogether. The fashion of so employing it had pretty 
generally died out, however, by the end of the century. 
But even when the employment of yoic was prevailed, 
cases of the use of was in the first and third persons 
of the plural were exceedingly rare. 

With the verb ends the foregoing brief survey of 
the changes that have taken place in the inflection 
of English. As a result of this examination^ a few 
general inferences can be safely drawn. One of 
them is, that the history of language, when looked at 
from the purely grammatical point of view, is little 
else than the history of corruptions. The account 
contained in the preceding pages is largely a record of 
endings that have been dropped, or perverted from 
their proper use ; of declensions that have been inter- 
mixed ; of conjugations that have been confounded ; 
of inflections in every part of speech that have either 
passed away altogether, or have been confused with 
one another, and consequently misapplied. There 
are but few forms in use, which, judged by a standard 
previously existing, would not be regarded as gross 
barbarisms. Terminations and expressions which had 
their origin in ignorance or misapprehension are now 
accepted by all ; and the employment of what was at 
first a blunder has often become subsequently a test 
of propriety of speech. 

Nothing of this need be denied or even ques- 
tioned ; all of it may be ungrudgingly admitted. But 
it is equally true that these grammatical changes, or 



Purity of the Speech. 477 

corruptions, if one is disposed so to call them, have 
had no injurious effects upon the development of the 
language ; or if, in single instances, they have been 
followed by injurious effects, these have been more 
than counterbalanced by benefits which have been de- 
rived from other quarters. For the operation of these 
changes is merely on the outside. It is rare, indeed, 
that they impair, or even modify in the slightest, the 
real force of expression. It would now be looked 
upon as improper to say / have shook for / have 
shakeit ; yet, in the days of Shakspeare and Milton, 
the former was as allowable as the latter ; and at this 
time all of us in a similar way use the preterite for the 
past participle in / have stood, or / have undei'stood, 
and are not even conscious in so doing that we are 
guilty of what is, in strict grammar, a barbarism. 
Changes of a character such as the foregoing — and 
most changes are of this character — affect merely the 
garb of speech, not speech itself. To suppose that 
the English tongue has suffered any loss of strength, 
that it has entered upon a period of decline, because 
we now say, for instance, stood, where etymologically 
we ought to say stonden, is no evidence whatever of 
decay on its part : it is merely evidence of ignorance 
on our part of what constitutes the real Hfe of lan- 
guage. 

It is, at the present time, a fashion to talk of our 
speech as being in some way less pure and vigorous 
than it was in the days of Alfred; mainly, because 
then it had, on the one hand, fewer foreign words. 



4/8 English Language, 

and, on the other, more inflections, more formative 
affixes, and therefore more capacity for self-develop- 
ment. But the test of the value of any tongue is not 
the grammatical or linguistic resources which it may 
be supposed to possess, it is the use which it makes 
of the resources it does possess. It is, on the very 
face, an absurdity to speak of a form of a language 
which has been made the vehicle of one of the 
great literatures of the world, which has been found 
fully adequate to convey all the conceptions of genera- 
tions of illustrious men, as being inferior in power to 
a form of it, which, whatever its theoretical capacities, 
has embodied in its literature, as a matter of fact, 
little that is worth reading or remembering. As a 
mere instrument of expression, there is not the slight- 
est question as to the immense superiority of the 
English of the nineteenth century over that of the 
ninth. It is equally proper to say that the former 
is just as pure as the latter, unless we restrict that 
epithet, as applied to language, to the narrow sense of 
being free from words that are not of native origin. 
Even in this respect there was no difterence in the 
influences that operated upon the two forms of the 
speech ; for the disposition to use foreign terms was 
just as potent in the Anglo-Saxon period as now, 
though the necessity for them was naturally far less 
pressing. No tongue can possibly be corrupted by 
alien words which convey ideas that cannot be ex- 
pressed by native ones. Yet this elementary truth 
lb far from being universally accepted; for it is a 



Stability of the Speech. 479 

lesson which many learn with difficulty, and some 
never learn at all, that purism is not purity. 

Another inference concerns the assurance we may 
feel as to the stability of our speech derived from the 
influence, already immense and steadily increasing, of 
the language of Hterature. This is something that 
places tongues now in use in a position entirely differ- 
ent from that occupied by those employed in any pre- 
vious period in the history of the world. The cultivated 
speech is with us no longer confined to a small class 
which an irruption of barbarism, or a social and poKti- 
cal revolution, may subject to the sway of those who 
speak a foreign or a corrupt idiom. It is the language 
of vast communities, and, through the operation of 
manifold agencies, is daily growing in universaHty and 
power. The whole tremendous machinery of educa- 
tion is constantly at work to strengthen it, to broaden 
it, to bring into conformity with it the speech of the 
humblest as well as of the highest. Day by day dia- 
lectic diiferences disappear; day by day the standard 
tongue, in which is embodied classical English litera- 
ture, is widening and deepening its hold upon every 
class. The history here given, brief as it is, shows 
how violent and extensive have been the changes that 
have taken place in our inflection since the ninth 
century ; and yet, of those changes, how few in num- 
ber and slight in importance are such as belong to 
the last three hundred years. If the social and 
political agencies now in being continue to exist, we 
may confidently expect that the language of the future 



480 English Language. 

will never materially vary from what it is to-day. 
Movement there must be. That is an essential char- 
acteristic of a living speech. But while differences 
will be developed, they will not be important either 
in their nature or extent. Pronunciation may perhaps 
be most affected ; but words and their meanings, gram- 
matical inflections and constructions, are no longer 
likely to move away on any large scale from usage 
which a great literature has made more or less- famihar 
to all, and to the readers and students and creators of 
which every generation adds a constantly increasing 
number. English, in the form which it has had essen- 
tially for the last three hundred years, may doubtless 
disappear ; but its destruction, if it ever takes place^ 
will be under conditions such as have never before 
existed, and will be owing fo agencies which differ 
wholly from those that have brought about the ruin of 
any of the great cultivated languages of the past. 



APPENDIX. 



At the desire of many instructors, a number of specimens of 
the language at different periods are here given, in addition to 
those contained in the body of the work. They have been 
selected partly for their intrinsic interest, as well as for the 
light they throw upon the history of the tongue. In the inter- 
linear translations, the method of denoting modern forms of 
words, or words understood, follows that laid down on page ^;^. 
The specimens are arranged in chronological order, and with 
this end in view, those in the work itself are included with a 
reference to the place where they are to be found. 

I. 

FROM KING ALFRED'S OROSIUS (about 900). 
Page 33. 

II. 

THE LORD'S PRAYER IN ANGLO-SAXON (about iooo). 
Compare No. XIII. 
Ure Fseder, ^u ^e eart on heofonum, si ^m nama 

Our Father, who art in [the] heavens, be thy name 

gehalgod. Tocume t5in rice. Geweort^e ^in willa 

hallowed. May thy kingdom come. Be thy will 

481 



482 Appendix. 

on eor^an swa-swa on heofonum. Sele us to-daeg 

on earth as In [the] heavens. Give (sell) us to-day 

urne daeghwamlican hlaf. And forgif us ure gyltas, 

our daily bread (loaf). And forgive us our sins (guilts) ^ 

swa-swa we forgifa^ urum gyltendum. And ne Ised 

so as we forgive our sinful ones. And [do] not lead 

t5u us on costnunge. Ac alys us fram yele. Si 

thou us into temptation. But release us from evil. Be 

hit swa. 

it so. 

III. 

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY. 

From the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, under 1085. 

iEfter pisum hsefde se cyng mycel gefeaht, and 

After this had the king much counsel (thought) , and 

swi^e deope spsece wi^ his witan ymbe fis land, hu 

very deep speech with his " witan " about this land, how 

hit wsere gesett, o^^e mid hwylcon mannon. Sende 

It was Inhabited, or with what men. [He] sent 

pa ofer call Englaland into eelcere scire his men, and 

then over all England into each shire his men, and 

lett agan ut hu fela hundred hyda weeron innon 

caused (let) to be found out how many hundred hides were in 

fsere scire, o^^e hwet se cyng himsylf haefde landes and 

the shire, or what land the king himself had and 

orfes innan ]>am lande, oS^e hwilce gerihtse he ahte 

[what] cattle in the land, or what dues he ought 

to habbanne to XII mon]?um of f aere scire. Eac he 

to have for twelve months from the shire. Also (eke) he 

lett gewritan hu mycel landes his arcebisceopas haefdon, 

caused (let) to be written how much land his archbishops had, 

and his leodbisceopas, and his abbotas, and his eorlas, 

and his suffragan bishops, and his abbots, and his earls. 



Appendix, 483 

and — f eah ic hit lengre telle — hwaet o^Se hu mycel 

and — though I tell it too much at length — what or how much 

aelc mann haefde, f e landsittende waes innan Englalande, 

each man had, who was an occupant of land in England, 

on lande o^^e on orfe, and hu mycel f eos hit weere 

ia land or in cattle, and how much money (fee) it was (were) 

wurS. Swa swycSe nearwelice he hit lett utaspyrian, 

worth. So very narrowly he caused it to be searched out, 

paet naes an selpig hide, ne an gyrde landes, 

that [there] was not one single hide, nor one yard of land, 

ne furdon — hit is sceame to tellanne, ac hit ne f uhte 

nor even — it is shame to telle, but it seemed to 

him nan sceame to donne — an oxe, ne an cu, ne an 

him no shame to do — one ox, nor one cow, nor one 

swin naes belyfon, f set naes gesaet on his gewrite ; 

swine was left, that was not set down in his register (writing) ; 

and ealle fa gewrita wseron gebroht to him sy^t^an. 

and all the writings were brought to him afterward. 



IV. 

CHARACTER OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, 

From the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, under 1087. 
Se cyng Willelm, pe we embe speca'S, waes swi^e 

The king William, whom we speak about, was [aj very 

WIS man, and swit5e rice, and wurSfulre and 

wise man, and very powerful (rich) , and more honorable and 

strengere f onne senig his foregengra waere. He waes 

stronger than any one of his predecessors was. He was 

milde pam godum mannum pe God lufedon, and ofer eall 

gracious (mild] to the good men who loved God, and beyond all 

gemett stearc f>am mannum pe wi^cwsedon his willan. . . 

measure severe (stark] to the men who gainsaid his will. 



484 Appendix, 

On his dagan waes faet msere mynster on Cantwarbyrig 

In his days was the great minster in Canterbury 

getymbrad, and eac swiSe manig o^er ofer eall 

built, and also (eke) very many others over aii 

Englaland. . . . Betwyx oSmm fingum nis na to 

England. Among (betwixt) other things [it] is not to be 

forgytanne, — faet gode friS fe he macode on }nsan 

forgotten, — the good peace which he made in this 

lande, swa paet an man, pe himsylf aht wsere, mihte 

land, so that a man, who was himself aught [of any account], might 

faran ofer his rice mid his bosum full goldes, ungederad, 

go (fare) over his kingdom with his bosom full of gold, unharmed, 

and nan man ne dorste slean oSerne man, naefde he 

and no man durst slay another man, had he 

neefre swa mycel yfel gedon wi^ fone o^erne. . . . 

never so much evil done against the other. 

Witodlice on his timan hsefdon men mycel geswinc, 

Nevertheless in his time had men much trouble 

and swi^e manige teonan. Castelas he let wyrcean, 

and very many afflictions. Castles he caused (let) to be wrought, 

and earme men swiSe swencean. ... He saette mycel 

and poor men to be much oppressed. He established a great 

deorfri^, and he laegde laga pserwiS, paet swa-hwa-swa 

game-preserve, and he laid down laws therewith, that whosoever 

sloge heort o^^e hinde, paet hine man sceolde blendian. 

slew hart or hind, that he should be blinded {Jit. that one should blind him). 

He forbead pa heortas, swylce eac pa baras. Swa 

He forbade [to slay] the harts, likewise the boars. As 

swiSe he lufode pa headeor swilce he weere heora 

much he loved the tall deer as if he were their 

faeder. Eac he saette be pam haran paet hi mosten 

father. Also (eke) he ordained concerning (by) the hares that they must 

freo faran. His rice men hit meendon, and pa earme 

go (fare) free. His great men complained of (moaned) it, and the poor 

men hit beceorodan. 

men bewailed it. 



Appendix. 485 



CONDITION OF ENGLAND UNDER KING STEPHEN. 

From the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, under 1137. 
-^uric rice man his castles makede and agsenes 

Every powerful (rich) man his castles made and against 

him heolden, and fylden fe land ful of castles. Hi 

him held [them], and filled the land full of castles. They 

suencten suy^e fe uurecce men of pe land mid 

worked very hard the wretched men of the land with 

castelweorces. pa f e castles uuaren maked, pa fylden 

castle works. When the castles were made, then filled 

hi mid deoules and yuele men. pa namen hi fa 

they [them] with devils and evil men. Then took they the 

men f e hi wenden "Se ani god hefden, bathe be 

men who they believed (weened) had any property, both by 

nihtes and be daeies, carlmen and wimmen, and diden 

night and by day, men and women, and put (did) 

heom in prisun efter gold and syluer, and pined 

them in prison for (after) their gold and silver, and tortured 

heom untellendlice pining ; for ne uuseren nseure nan 

them [with] unspeakable torture; for never were any 

martyrs swa pined alse hi w^ron. Me henged up 

martyrs so tortured as they were. They hanged them (one hanged them) up 

bi the fet, and smoked heom mid ful smoke; me 

by the feet, and smoked them with foul smoke; they 

hanged bi the pumbes, other bi the hefed, and hengen 

hanged [them] by the thumbs, or by the head, and hung 

bryniges on her fet. Me dide cnotted strenges 

[something] burning on their feet. They put (did) knotted cords (strings) 

abuton here haeued, and uurythen to faet it gsede to 

about their head, and writhed [them] that it went to 

f e haernes. Hi diden heom in quarterne far nadres 

the brain. They put (did) them in prison where adders 



486 Appendix, 

and snakes and pades w^ron inne, and drapen heom 

and snakes and toads were in, and slew them 

swa. . . . I ne can, ne i ne mai, tellen alle ]?e wundes, 

so. I cannot, nor I may not, tell all the wounds, 

ne alle pe pines, "Se hi diden wrecce men on fis land, 

nor all the tortures, that they did to wretched men in this land, 

and ^e lastede fa XIX wintre wile Stephne was 

and that lasted the nineteen years (winters) while Stephen was 

king ; and ^ure it was uuerse and uuerse. 

king; and ever it was worse and worse. 



VI. 

FROM THE ORMULUM (see page %Z), about 1200. 
Annd whase wilenn shall ]?iss boc 

And whosoever shall wish this book 

Efft of err sife writenn, 

Again a second (other) time to write, 

Himm bidde ice fatt het write rihht. 

Him bid I that he it write rightly, 

Swa summ fiss boc him taecheff, 

So as this book him teacheth, 

All fwerrt ut affterr f att itt iss 

All throughout according to (after) that it is . 

Uppo fiss firrste bisne. 

In this first example. 

W\\\ all swillc rime alls her iss sett, 

With just (all) such rime as here is set, 

Wif p all se fele wordess ; 

With just (all) so many words; 

Annd tatt he loke wel f att he 

And that he look well that he 

An bocstaff write twi33ess, 

A letter write twice. 



Appendix. 487 

E33whser faer itt uppo ]?iss boc 

Everywhere where (there) it in (upon) this book ' 

Iss writenn o ])att wise. 

Is written in that wise. 

Loke he well f att het write swa, 

[Let] him look well that he it write so, 

Forr he ne ma33 nohht elless 

For he may nought else 

Onn Ennglissh writenn rihht te word, 

In English write rightly the word^ 

patt wite he wel to sope. 

That may he know (wit) well for sooth. 



VII. 
PROCLAMATION OF HENRY III., in 1258. 
Henr', ]?ur3 Godes fultume king on Engleneloande, 

Henry, through God's favor king of (on) England, 

Ihoaverd on LJrloand', duk on Norm', on Aquitain', 

lord of (on) Ireland, duke of Normandy, of Aquitaine, 

and eorl on Aniow, send igretinge to alle hise holde, 

and earl of Anjou, sends greeting to all his subjects, 

ilaerde and ileawede on Huntendon* schir*. 

clerical and lay (lewd) in Huntingdon shire. 

paet witen 3e wel alle, fset we willen and vnnen 

This (that) know (wit) ye well all, that we will and grant 

fset pset vre rsedesmen, alle o]?er j^e moare dael of 

that what (that) our councillors, all or the more part (deal) of 

heom, |?8et beo]? ichosen fur3 us and fur3 ]?8et 

them ('em), who (that) are (be) chosen by (through) us and by the 

loandes folk on vre kuneriche, habbef idon and 

lands people (folk) in our kingdom, have done and 

schullen don in pe worfnesse of Gode and on 

shall do . in the honor (worthiness) of God and In 



488 Appendix, 

vre treowfe for fe freme of fe loande ])ur3 fe 

allegiance (truth) to us for the advantage of the land by (through) the 

besi3te of pan toforeniseide redesmen, beo stedefaest 

direction of the aforesaid councillors, be stable (steadfast) 

and ilestinde in alle pinge a but en aende : and 

and permanent (lasting) in all things ever without end: and 

we hoaten alle vre treowe in fe treowfe faet heo 

we command all our lieges by (in) the allegiance (truth) that they 

US 03 en, paet heo stedefaestliche healden and swerien 

owe us, that they steadfastly hold and swear 

to healden and to werien fo isetnesses, paet beon 

to hold and to defend the ordinances, that are (be) 

imakede and beon to makien fur3 fan toforeniseide 

made and are (be) to be made by the aforesaid 

raedesmen oper pur3 f>e moare dael of heom, alswo alse 

councillors or by the more part of them, also as 

hit is biforen iseid, and f aet aehc ofer helpe faet for to 

it is before said, and that each help others that to 

done, bi fan ilche of e a3enes alle men, ri3t for to done 

do, by the same (ilk) oath against all men, right to do 

and to foangen ; and noan ne nime of loande ne of 

and to receive ; and [that] no one take of land or of 

e3te, wherefur3 fis besi3te mu3e beon ilet ofer 

property, whereby this arrangement may be hindered (let) or 

iwersed on onie wise ; and 3if oni of er onie 

made worse in any wise; and if any [person] or any [persons] 

cumen her on3enes, we willen and hoaten faet alle vre 

come here against, we will and command that all n)ur 

treowe heom healden deadliche ifoan; and for faet 

lieges (true men) hold them deadly foes ; and because (for that) 

we willen faet f is beo stedefaest and lestinde, we senden 

we will that this be stable and permanent, we send 

3ew fis writ open iseined wif vre seel to halden 

you this open writ sealed with our seal to keep (hold) 

amanges 3ew ine hord. ^ Witnesse usseluen aet Lunden' 

among you in custody. Witness ourselves at London 



Appendix, 489 

fane egtetenf e day on ]?e monfe of Octobr' in pe two 

the eighteenth day of the month of October in the two 

and fowerti3f e 3eare of vre cruninge. 

and fortieth year of our coronation. 

VIII. 

FROM THE SO-CALLED ROBERT OF GLOUCESTER'S 
CHRONICLE, ABOUT 1300. 

Page 60. 

IX. 

FROM THE CURSOR MUNDI (NORTHERN DIALECT), 

ABOUT 1300. 

Page 121. 

X. 
FROM THE ROMANCE OF ARTHUR AND MERLIN, 

ABOUT 1330. 

Page 62o 

XI. 
FROM LANGLAND'S VISION OF PIERS PLOWMAN, 

ABOUT 1377. 

Pages 67 and 92; also page 170. 

XII. 

FROM TREVISA'S TRANSLATION OF HIGDEN'S 
POLYCHRONICON, about 1387. 

Pages 61, 63, and 118. 



490 Appendix. 

XIII. 

THE LORD'S PRAYER, 

IN THE Wycliffite Version, Purvey's Recension, about 1390. 

See page 70. Compare II. 

Oure fadir that art in heuenes, halewid be thi name. 
1 hi kyngdoom come to. Be thi wille don in erthe as 
in heuene. 3yv^ to vs this dai oure breed over othir 
substaunce. And for3yve to vs oure dettis, as we for- 
3yven to oure dettouris : and lede vs not into tempta- 
cioun, but delyuere vs from yuel. Amen, 

XIV. 

FROM CHAUCER'S CANTERBURY TALES, ABOUT 1390. 

Page 100; and also pages 75, 91, and 174. 

For Northern Dialect see page 120. 

XV. 

FROM CAXTON'S PROLOGUE TO THE ENEYDOS (i490> 
Page 159. 



INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND PERSONS. 



Accusative case, 197, 198, 209, 
214, 215, 217, 218. 

Addison, Joseph (1672-1719), 
quoted, 275, 282. 

Adjective, the, 29, 96, 150, 241- 
255; nominal, weak, or defi- 
nite declension of, 243-247; 
pronominal, strong, or indefi- 
, nite declension of, 243-247. 

Affixes, loss and gain of, 107- 
109, 112. 

Alfred the Great (r. 871-901), 
25. 27, 32, 33, 42, 44. 

Alliterative verse, 30, 91-93. 

Angles, the, 22-24, 27. 

Anglo-French speech, the, 74- 

76. 

Anglo-Saxon alphabet, the, 34- 

36. 

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the, 32. 
Anglo-Saxon language, the, 28, 

83, Sy, 88. 
Anglo-Saxon literature, 29-34. 
Anglo-Saxon version of Bible, 

quoted, 281, 292; gospel of 

Nicodemus, quoted, 284. 
Anglo-Saxon words, loss of, 

106. 
Armorican tongue, the, 5. 
" Arthur and Merlin," poem of, 

quoted, 62. 



Article, the definite, 259, 260. 
Article, the indefinite, 299, 300. 
Aryan. See Indo-European. 
Ascham, Roger (i 5 1 5-1 568), 7 1 . 
Augustine, St. (died 604), 41. 

Bacon, Francis (i 561-1626), 
72, 179. 433; quoted, 166, 

zz^^ 458- 

Barbour, John (i3i6?-i395), 

124, 135- 

Beaumont and Fletcher, 167. 

Bentley, Richard (i 662-1 742), 
quoted, 275. 

Beowulf, epic of, 31. 

Bernicia, kingdom of, 23. 

Bible, Authorized Version of, 
70, 164, 169, 354, 410, 433; 
quoted, 166, 281. 

Black-letter, 35. 

"Blickling Homilies," 262, 276. 

Bohemian tongue, the, 4. 

Breton tongue, the, 5. 

Bulgarian tongue, the, 4. 

Bunyan, John (1628-1688), 
quoted, 456. 

Byron, Lord ( 1 788-1 824) , quot- 
ed, 336. 



Csedmon (about 670), 31 ; quot- 
ed, 265. 



491 



492 Index to Subjects and Persons. 



Caesar's invasion of Britain, i8. 

Canute (r. 1014-1035), 44. 

Capgrave, John (i 393-1464), 
quoted, 279. 

Case, 197, 198. See Nomina- 
tive^ Genitive, etc. 

Caxton, William (i422?-i49i), 
158; quoted, 158-160, 433. 

Oitic branch of Indo-Euro- 
pean, 5. 

Chaucer (died 1400), 70, 71, 
98-101, 119, 124, 132, 133, 
136, 138, 144, i48-i5i> 164, 
168, 208, 277, 333, 334, 346, 
388, 409, 422, 438; quoted, 
75, 100, 120, 174, 280, 281, 
295, 298, 299, 423, 437, 444, 
458, 461, 462, 463, 465, 467. 

Coke, Sir Edward (1552-1634), 
287, 288. 

Comparison of the adjective, 
247-255; irregular compari- 
son, 252, 253; double com- 
parison, 251, 252; compari- 
son with -er and -est, 248- 
250; comparison with more 
and mosty 250, 251; compar- 
ison of chief, supre77te, per- 
fect, etc., 252; comparison 
with -7na and -mest, 254, 255. 

Compound nouns, 42, 109, no. 

Conjugation, old or new, 303, 
305; conflict of the two 
conjugations, 307-312. See 
Verbs, strong and weak. 

Cornish tongue, the, 5. 

Cornwall, John (about 1350), 
63, 64. 

Cowley, Abraham (161 8-1 667), 
quoted, 439. 

"Cursor Mundi," 120, 121. 

Cymric branch of Celtic, 5, 18, 
24, 38-40. 

Cynewulf, 31. 



Daniel, Samuel (i 562-1 619), 

quoted, 414. 
Danish language, the, 9. 
Dative case, the, 197, 198, 209, 

214, 215, 217, 218, 220. 
Decker, Thomas (1570?- 

1641?), 167. 
Declension of the adjective, 

201, 242-247. 
Declension of the noun, 198- 

201, 209-213; in 0, i, and ti, 

198-200, 209-211; in -n, 

200, 211-213; confusion of 
the noun declensions, 213- 
223. 

Declension of the pronouns, 

201. See Pronouns. 
Deira, kingdom of, 23. 
Demonstrative pronoun, the, 

257-263. 
Dialogus de Scaccario, 102. 
Double negative in English, 

the, 174. 
Douglas, Gawin (i474?-i522), 

136. 
Dryden, John (i 631-1700), 

167. 
Dual number, the, 98, 198, 263, 

264, 401. 
Dunbar, William (1465?- 

1530?)^ 136. 
Dutch language, the, 10. 

" Early English " period, the, 

88, 206. 
East Anglia, kingdom of, 23, 

44. 
East Germanic division of the 

Teutonic, 8. 
East Midland dialect, 122, 124, 

133- 
Edward the Confessor (r. 1042- 

1066), 50. 
Egbert (r. 802-839), 25, 26. 



Index to Subjects and Persons, 493 



Elene, Anglo-Saxon poem of, 

437- 
English used by nobility, 55- 

57» 59, 62. 
Erse tongue, the, 5. 
Essex, kingdom of, 22. 
Ethandun, battle of, 44. 
Exeter Book, the, 31. 

Finnish tongue, the, 12. 
Flemish tongue, the, 10. 
Fletcher, John (1579-1625), 

167; quoted, 129, 275, 414. 
Florio, John(i553?-i625), 167. 
Frankish, the Low, 10, 196. 
French language, the, 6, 7, 73, 

74. 
French language in England, 

48, 51, 53, 55, 57,60-67,74- 

81, 102, 132. 
French words in English, 85, 

102-106, 124, 138, 144, 175. 
Frisian or Friesic tongue, the, 

II, 196. 

Gadhelic branch of Celtic, 5, 

39, 40. 
Gaelic tongue, the, 5, 134. 
Gender, natural and grammati- 
cal, 157, 210. 
Genitive case, 197, 198, 209, 

214, 217, 219, 220, 221, 242. 
Genitive ending in -j-, 96, 126. 
German. See High German 

and Low Gej-man. 
Giraldus Cambrensis (1146?- 

1220?), 117. 
Gothic tongue, the, 8, 195, 196, 

198, 199, 202, 203, 205, 303. 
Gower, John (i325?-i4o8), 69, 

7i» ?>?iZi 438, 443; quoted, 

469. 
Greek language, the, 4, 175, 

177, 197. 



Greene, Robert (1560 7-1592), 
quoted, 274, 275, 291, 337, 
377- 

Harold (r. 1066), 50, 51. 

Hastings, battle of, 51. 

Hearne, Thomas (1678-1735), 
quoted, 468. 

Hebrew tongue, the, 12. 

Heliand, the, 10. 

Hellenic branch of Indo-Euro- 
pean, 4. 

Henry I. (r. 1100-1135), 54. 

Henry H. (r. 1154-1189), 57, 
102. 

Henry HI. (r. 1216-1272), 56. 

Henry IV. (r. I399-I4I3)» 
76-78. 

Henry V. (r. 1413-1422), 77- 

79. 
Henry of Huntingdon (1084?-- 

1155). 53- 
Henry the Minstrel, or Blind 

Harry (about 1480), 136. 
Henryson, Robert (1430?- 

1506?), 136. 
Fligden, Ralph (died 1364), 

60, 123; quoted, 61, 118. 
High German speech, the, 9, 

196, 198, 204. 
His as sign of the genitive, 

281-283. 
Hooker, Richard (1554?- 

1600), 179. 
Hungarian language, the, 12. 

i- as a prefix to the participle, 

387-390. 

Icelandic tongue, the, 9. 

Imperative mode, the, 156, 303, 
440. 

Indefinite pronouns, 299, 300. 

Indian branch of Indo-Euro- 
pean, 3. 



494 Index to Subjects and Persons. 



Indicative mode, the, i68, 169, 

174, 303- 

Indo-European family of lan- 
guages, i-ii. 

Indo-European inflections, 194- 
198. 

Indo-Germanic. See Indo- 
European. 

Infinitive, the, 303, 442-446; 
the gerundial infinitive, 443- 
445; not preceded by to, 
444; the past infinitive fol- 
lowing a past tense, 445, 
446. _ 

Inflection in English, loss of, 

85,94-99, 193- 

Ingulph's History, 52. 

Instrumental case, the, 197, 
198, 209, 257, 258, 261, 290. 

Interrogative Pronouns, the, 
289-293. 

Iranian branch of Indo-Euro- 
pean, 4. 

Irish tongue, the, 5. 

Irregular Plurals of the Noun, 
222-225, 229-240. 

Italic branch of Indo-Euro- 
pean, 6. 

Italian language, the, 6, 175. 

James I. of England (r. 1603- 

1625), 135. 
James I. of Scotland (r. 1424- 

1437), 135,438. 
Johnson, Dr. Samuel (1709- 

1784), 181, 182; quoted, 439. 
Jonson, Ben (i573?-i637), 

167, 301, 381,410, 412, 423, 

424; quoted, 291, 301, 409, 

412, 464. 
Jutes, the, 22. 

Kent, kingdom of, 22, 41. 
Kentish dialect, the, 26, 123. 



Kyd, Thomas (l557?-i595?), 
his " Spanish Tragedy " 
quoted, 292. 

Ladino speech, the, 7. 
Langland's " Piers Plowman," 

66,69,279,333,438; quoted, 

67, 92, 170, 410. 
Latimer, Plugh (1485?-! 555) » 

quoted, 450. 
Latin language, the, 6, 197. 
Latin element in English, 20, 

37,38,40-43, 105, 145, 175- 

177, 179. 
Laws and law proceedings in 

English, 64-66, 79, 80. 
Layamon's "Brut," 89, 103, 

281. 
Lettish tongue, the, 4. 
Lindsay, Sir David (1490- 

.1555); 136. 

Lithuanic speech, the, 4. 

Lodge, Thomas (i558?-i625), 
quoted, 274, 455. 

Longfellow, Henry W. (1807- 
1882), quoted, 323, 348. 

Low Prankish, the, 10, 196. 

Low German tongues, the, lO. 

Low Germanic group of Teu- 
tonic languages, 10, 12, 196. 

Mandeville, Sir John, 69. 
Marlowe, Christopher (1564- 
i593),q^oted, 274, 275, 348, 

455- 
Manx tongue, the, 6. 
Matthew^ of Westminster, 56. 
Mercia, kingdom of, 23. 
Mercian dialect, the, 26, 122. 
Middle English period, the, %*]^ 

206. 
Midland dialect of English, 92, 

1 18-120, 122, 123, 128, 130- 

134, 138, 139, 168, 206. 



Index to Subjects, and Persons, 495 



Midland dialect, East, 122, 124, 

Midland dialect, West, 122, 

131-133. 
Milton, John (1608-1674), 167, 

179, 269, 354, 381; quoted, 

320, 347, 389. 
Modern English period, 87, 

161-189. 
Moeso-Gothic tongue, the, 9. 
More, Sir Thomas (1480-1 535), 

quoted, 277, ZZI^ 455» 475- 

Netherlandish speech, the, lo, 

196. 
Nominative case, 197, 198, 209, 

217, 218, 220-222. 
Normandy, province of, 49, 50, 

58, 60, 73-75. 
Norman-French, the, 49, 50, 

102, 103. 
Norman-French speech, the, 

67, 73. 74, 85. 
Norse, the Old, 9, 37, 45, 46, 

%'i^^ 196, 198, 199, 201, 204. 
Northern dialect of English, 86, 

1 1 7-1 22, 123-130, 133, 134, 

137-139, 168, 206. 
Northumbria, kingdom of, 23. 
Northumbrian dialect, the, 26, 

27, 30, 31, 46, 95, 115, 121, 

125, 128. 
.Norwegian tongue, the, 9. 
Noun, the, 29, 96, 163, 209-240. 
Number, 198, 209, 242, 401. 

See Singular Dual^ Plural. 

Objective case, 267, 268. 

Ohthere, 33. 

Old English period, the, 87- 

105, 206. 
Old Saxon tongue, the, 10, 196c 
Ordericus Vitalis (1075-1144), 

54. 



Ormulum, the, 88, 103. 
Orthographv, English, 180- 
182. 

Participle, past, of the strong 
conjugation, 387-400; with 
pretix ge, y, or i, 387-390; 
dropping or retention of final 
-en, 389-393; intrusion of 
preterite into past participle, 
393-398; weak verbs assum- 
ing strong past participial 
forms, 397-399- 

Participle, past, of the weak 
conjugation, 400, 401 ; drop- 
ping of final -(/, 401. 

Participle, present, 446; partici- 
ples, compound present and 
past, 447. 

Pecock, Reginald (1390?- 
1460?), quoted, 445. 

Peele, George (i553?-i598?), 
quoted, 291, 455, 471. 

Pepys, Samuel (1632- 1703), 
quoted, 299, 337. 

Persian language, the, 4. 

Personal endings, assumed ori- 
gin of, 401-403; disappear- 
ance of, 403. 

Personal pronouns, the, 97, 150, 
164, 263-289; confusion of 
nominative and objective, 
cases of, 271-275. 

Persons, 401-404; first person 
singular, 408; second per- 
son singular, 408; third per- 
son singular, 407, 409, 410; 
persons of the plural, 406, 
407, 410-414. 

Piatt Deutsch, the, 10. 

Plural of the noun, 96, 146, 
148-150, 152, 215, 216, 220- 
226, 229-240. 

Polish tongue, the, 4. 



49^ Index to Subjects and Persons, 



Pope, Alexander (i 688-1 744), 

282, 426, 429; quoted, 439. 
Porter, Thomas (about 1670); 

quoted, 337, 451. 
Portuguese language, the, 6. 
Possessive adjective pronouns, 

275-277. 
Prefixes, 107, 108, 112, 113. 
Pronoun, the, 256-300. See 

Demonstrative^ l7idejinite^ 

l7tter7-ogative, Personal, Re- 
flexive^ and Relative. 
Pronouns of address, 286-289. 
Provencal tongue, the, 6, 7. 
Purvey's Recension of the Wy- 

cliffite Translation of the 

Bible, 70. 

Raleigh, Sir AYalter (1552- 
1618), 287, 288. 

Reflexive pronouns, 283-286. 

Relative pronouns, 293-299. 

Renter, Fritz (1810-1874), 11. 

Rhaeto-Romanic tongue, the, 7. 

Rhotacism, 201. 

Richard I. (r. 1189-1199), 54. 

Riche, Barnabe, quoted, 282. 

Robert of Gloucester, 60, 90; 
quoted, 60, 259. 

Robert Manning of Brunne 
(about 1320), 90. 

Rollo, Duke of Normandy, 49. 

Romaic language, the, 4. 

Roman Conquest of Britain, 18. 

Romanic or Romance Lan- 
guages, 6. 

Roumanian tongue, the, 7. 

Runes, 34. 

Russian language, the, 4. 

Sackville, Thomas, Earl of 
Dorset (i 536-1 608), quoted, 
331, 456, 468. 

Sanscrit language, the, 3, 9, 195. 



Saxon Frontier, Count of the, 

21. 
Saxon (or English) tongue, 1 1, 

27. 

Saxon, the Old, 10, 196. 

Saxons, the, 11, 22-24, 27. 

Scandinavian branch of the 
Teutonic, 9. 

Scandinavian element in Eng- 
lish, 43-47» 127, 128. 

Scotch dialect of English, the, 
133-139, 206. 

Scythian family, the, 12. 

Semitic family of languages, 
the, II, 12. 

Shakspeare, William (1564- 
1616), 167-169, 253, 354, 
381, 384, 433; quoted, 166, 
274, 286, 2%^, 289, 377, 409, 
413, 443, 451, 456, 465, 

475- 
Slavonic or Slavo-Lettic branch 

of Indo-European, 4, 7. 
Southern dialect of English, 

86, 118, 122, 123-130, 168, 

206. 
Spanish language, the, 6, 175. 
Spenser, Edmund (1553?- 

1599), 364, 412; quoted, 

320, 322, 468. 
Steele, Sir Richard (1671- 

1729); quoted, 297. 
Subjunctive mode, the, 168, 

174, 303, 415' 441- 
Suffixes, 107, 108, 113. 
Superlatives used of two in 

comparison, 252. 
Sussex, kingdom of, 22. 
Synonymous words in English, 

112. 
Swedish tongue, the, 9. 
Sweyn, 44. 
Swinburne, Algernon Charles 

(1843-), quoted, 252. 



Index to Subjects and Persons. 497 



Tartaric family of languages, 1 2. 

Tennyson, Alfred (1809-1892), 
426, 429. 

Tense, 404; the present, 303, 
404-416; contracted present 
forms, 414; the preterite, 
145, 303, 416; preterite of 
weak conjugation, 416-418; 
preterite of the strong con- 
jugation, 418-433; double 
forms of the preterite in 
Modern English, 420-428; 
the perfect, 99,434; the plu- 
perfect, 434; the future, 99, 
432; the future-perfect, 433. 

^'Testament of Love, The," 75. 

Teutonic branch of Indo-Euro- 
pean, 8-1 1, 12, 194-205. 

Teutonic Conquest of Britain, 
20. 

Thomson, James (1700- 1748), 
412. 

Trevisa, John of, 61; quoted, 
63, 66, 118. 

Turanian family of languages, 
12. 

Turkish language, the, 12. 

Udall, Nicholas (1506- 15 64), 
comedy of " Ralph Roister 
Dristes," quoted, 464. 

Umias, 9. 

Verb, the, 98, 151, 153, 155, 

167-174, 301 ff- 
Verbs, irregular, 466-476. 
Verbs, preterite-present, 452- 

466. 
Verb, the strong, 98, 153-155, 

303-355; Class I., 313-319. 

351; Class II., 319-323; 

Class III., 323-331* 351; 

Class IV., 331-332, 35 M 

Class v., 334-339. 35 1 ^ Class 



VI., 339-344, 351; Class VII., 
344-348. 

Verbs, strong, losses of, in 
English, 349; number of, 
in Enghsh, 349, 351; ex- 
hibiting weak forms, 350, 352. 

Verb, the substantive, 469- 
476. 

Verb, the weak, 99, 153-155, 
303-3? 2, 349-386. 

Verbs, irregular weak, 361- 
386; with preterite termina- 
tions -^^or -/, 362-367, 372- 
375; with same forms 
throughout, 367-372; with 
shortened stem-vowel, 375- 
382; with original vowel 
variation, 382-385; with or- 
thographic variations, 386. 

VerceUi Book, the, 32. 

Vocabulary of English, loi- 
114, 142, 144, 162-164, 175- 
180. 

Voice, the active, 302; the 
middle, 303; the passive, 

169-173. 303, 44S-452. 
Vowel-change (^ablaut), 202. 
Vowel-modihcation {umlaut), 

203-205. 
Vowel-variation, 202. 

Wales, North, 25, 117. 

Wales, West, 25. 

Wallis, John (161 6-1 703), 381, 

383. 
Walter de Biblesworth (about 

1270), 56. 
Webster, John, 167; quoted, 

274, Z11- 
Wedmore, Peace of, 44. 
Welsh tongue, the, 5, 18, 19, 

24. 
Wessex, kingdom of, 22, 25, 

44. 



49^ Index to Subjects and Persons. 



West Germanic division of the 

Teutonic, 8, 9. 
West Midland dialect, the, 122, 

131-133- 

West-Saxon dialect, the, 26, 27, 

30, 31, 46, 2>T,, 93, 1 1 5-1 1 7, 

122, 128, 208. 
William I., the Conqueror (r. 

1066-1087), 50, 54. 
William of Malmesbury (1095 ?- 

1143?), 117. 
Wycherley, William (1640- 

1715), quoted, 275. 



Wycliffe, John (i324?-i384), 
70; Wycliffite version of the 
Scriptures, 333; quoted, 280, 
292, 473; revised by Purvey, 
70. 

Wyntoun, Andrew (about 1420), 
135. 136. 

y-, as a prefix to the participle, 
3S7-390. 

Zend, the, 4. 



INDEX TO WORDS AND PHRASES. 



ABBREVIATIONS. 



a. 


= adjective. 


pers. 


= personal. 


adv» 


= adverb. 


phr. 


= phrase. 


a/. 


= affix. 


//. 


= plural. 


arU 


= article. 


pp. 


= past participle. 


C0?7lp. 


= comparative degree. 


p.pres. 


= present participle. 


defec. 


= defective. 


poss. 


= possessive. 


demon. 


= demonstrative. 


pr. 


= pronoun. 


end. 


= ending. 


pre/. 


= prefix. 


gen. 


= genitive. 


prep. 


= preposition. 


ger. 


= gerund. 


pres. 


= present. 


imp. 


= imperative. 


sing. 


= singular. 


imper. 


= impersonal. 


superl. 


= superlative. 


ind. 


= indicative. 


V. 


= verb. 


indef. 


= indefinite. 


v.-phr. 


= verb-phrase. 


inf. 


= infinitive. 


v.pret.pres 


. = preterite-present 


inter j. 


= interjection. 




verb. 


interrog 


= interrogative. 


vs. 


= strong verb. 


irreg. 


= irregular. 


vw. 


= weak verb. 


n. 


= noun. 


vs. vw. 


= verb, strong and 


neg. 


= negative. 




weak. 


nipm. 


= numeral. 


vs{vtv). 


= verb now strong, 


P- 


= participle. 




originally weak. 


pass. 


= passive. 


vw(vs). 


= verb now weak, 


per. 


= person. 




originally strong. 



Foreign words and Anglo-Saxon words are printed in Italics. 
The Anglo-Saxon originals, when not given, can be found under 
the Modern English words derived from them. 

499 



500 



Index to Words and Phrases, 



a, pr. pers.^ 269. 

2,^ prep. ^ 172. 

abide, us. vw., 313, 315, 350, 

394; abode (n), //., 315; 

abidden, abid, //., 315, 394. 
-able, suf.^ 113. 
ache, vw(vs)., 343. 
"^nig. a., 204. 

agait, V. pret. pres., 453, 454. 
aged, a., 360. 
ago, agone, a., 469. 
-al, suf., 113. 
aller, alther, * of all,' a. gen. 

pi., 277. 
an, art. iJtdef., 299, 300. 
an, num., 204. 
an, pr. indef., 204, 299. 
-an, n. pi. end., 148, 212. 
-an, mf. end., 94, 442. 
-and(e), end. p. pres., 446, 447. 
anti-,/r^., 112. 
any, a., 204. 
apparatus, n., 238. 
2iXQ, pres.pl., 46, 168, 470. 
assen, n. pi., 223. 
asshen, n. pi., 223. 
avon, n., 39. 
awake, vs. vw., 341. 
awake, a., 341. 

bad, «., 253; badder, baddest, 

253. 
bake, vw{ys)., 343; baken, 

PP-. 344. 
ban, 'vzv(vs')., 346. 
band, ;«., 202. 
bard, n., 39. 
bare, pret., 332. 
bark, vzv{vs)., 331. 
be, z^. irreg.., 46, 167, 168, 172, 

173. 434, 435» 449, 450» 4^9- 
476; ben, 3^/fr^. j"2;^^.,47i; 
be, //., 474; there be, phr., 
471- 



bear, vs., 332, 391, 399, 430; 

beared, pret., 352; bare, 

pret., 332. 
beat, 7^5., 345, 390, 393. 
become, vs., 449, 450. 
bede(n), 'to offer,' vs., 321, 

338. 

bee, 7t., 148, 223, 224. 

beef, n., ill. 

been, 7t.pl., 148, 223. 

begen, num., 265. 

begin, vs., 202, 391, 395, 396, 
424, 425, 436; began, //., 
396; begunnen,//., 391. 

behave, vw., 385; behad, /r^^., 

386. 

being built, the house is, phr.; 

being reaped, the field is, 

phr., 451. 
bell, ' to roar,' vw{vs^., 330. 
ben, n., 39. 
bend, vw., 366. 
b'eojt, V. irreg., 170, 449, 450, 

469, 474. 
beorg, n., 42. 
bequeathe, viv{vs^., 339. 
bereave, vw., 379, 381; be- 

reaven, //,, 398, 399. 
beseech, vw., 127, 385;' be- 

seeched, /r^/'., 385. 
bestead, vw., 371. 
bet, vzv., 372, 373. 
betide, vzu., 376, 378; betided, 

pret., 378. 
between you and I, phr., 165. 
bid, w., 335, 337, 393, 425, 

444; bid, pp., 337; bade, 

//•, 337; bit, 'bids,' 414. 
bidde(n), 'to ask,' vs., 321, 

337- 
bide, vw. vs., 313, 314, 315, 342, 

394; bid,/r^/., 314. 
bind, w., 324, 326, 427, 442; 

bounden,//., 330, 390. 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



Sor 



biscopf n., 42; biscop-rice, n., 

42. 
bishop, ;^., 42; bishopric, ;/., 

42. 
bite, 7/5., 313, 392; bot, bote, 

pret., 314. 
black, a.', v.\ n., 113. 
bleed, vw., 376. 
blend, vw.y 366. 
bless, z/7£/., 364. 
blind, a.y 243-246, 249. 
blow (of wind, etc.), vs., 345, 

392; blowed, /rf/., 354. 
blow, * to bloom,' vs., 345, 392. 
bbchus, n., 109. 
bond, 11., 202. 
born ) ^ , 
borne I ^-^-399. 

bot(e),/r^/., 314. 

boughten, //., 398. 

bound, a., 128. 

bounden, a., 330, 390. 

bow, vw{ys^., 322. 

brace, n., 231. 

braid, vwiys')., 331. 

break, z^^., 332, ^ZZ^ 393, 429, 

430; brake, pret., 332, 430; 

broke, pp., ZZZ, 429. 
breeches, w., 232. 
breed, vw., 376. 
brethren, n. pi., 129, 149, 234, 

235- 
brew, vw(vs^., 322. 
bring, vzv., 306, 382. 
broad, «., 249. 
broc, n., 232. 
brogue, n., 39. 
brook, vzv{vs)., 322. 
b7'd^or, n., 129, 149, 220, 234. 
brother, ;?., 129, 149, 150, 200, 

220, 234, 235. 
b74., num., 265. 
build, viv., 366. 
burn, vw{vs),, 330,331. 



burst, V7v(vs)., 331, 370; 
bursted, p7'et., 370; bursten, 

//v 331, 397- 
bushel, It., 231. 
* busted,' pret. z.x^^pp., 370. 
buy, vzv., 382. 
-by, n., 45. 
3yr, n., 45. 

caer, n., 40. 

calf, ;^., Ill, 235; calveren,//., 

235- 
call, vw., 47. 
can, z/. auxil., 458. 
can, V. pret. pres., 457, 458. 
care, ;?., 210, 213, 218, 227. 
earn, n., 95, 210, 213, 218, 219. 
carve, vw{vs)., 309, 331; carf, 

p7^et., 309; carven, //., 331, 

397- 
cas, ' cases,' n. pi., 231. 
cast, z^w., 371, 372, 398; casted, 

p7'et., 372; casten,//., 398. 
-caster, suf., 20. 
catch, 2^76'., 155, 383; catched, 

pret, 155, 385. 
-cester, suf., 20. 

cherub, cherubim, n. , 239, 240. 
chese(n), *to choose,' vs., 321. 
-Chester, suf., 20. 
chew, z/z£^(z/j)., 322. 
chidden,//., 316, 317, 398. 
chide, vs(vw)., 316, 317, 351, 

377»393; eluded, /r^/., 317; 

chodQ, pret., 317. 
chief, a., 252. 
child, n., 129, 149, 152, 235, 

236; childer,//., 236. 
chodit, pret., 317. 
choose, OT., 319, 320, 321, 392, 

429; choosed,/r^/., 352, 354. 
church, n., 127. 
cild, n., 129, 149, 235. 
circe, n., 127. 



502 



Index to Words and Phrases, 



claymore, n., 39. 

clave, /r^/., 313, 316. 

claw, vw{vs).i 346. 

cleave, *to split,' vw. vs., 319, 
321, 350, 380, 381, 392; 
clove, p7'et., 319; cleaved, 
cleft, /r^/., 321, 380; clave^ 
pret., 316, 321. 

cleave, ' to adhere,' vw. vs., 
313, 315, 316, 321, 350, 351, 
396; cizNt, pret., 321. 

clepe, vw., 47, 389. 

climb, vw. vs., 155, 324, 326, 
328, 350, 354, 424; climb, 
/r^/., 424; clomh, pre t., 4.24. 

cling, vs., 324, 427. 

clomb, /r^/., 324, 328, 424. 

clothe, vw., 386. 

-coin, su/., 20. 

come, vs., 332, 333, 391, 442; 
comed, pre^., 352; com(e), 
P'^^', 333 > comen, //., 333, 
391 ; comand, /. pres., 447. 

con, vw., 458. 

conne(n), ' to be able,' v. pret. 
pres., 458. 

consummate, pp., 401. 

cor en, pp., 320. 

cost, vw., 371. 

coud or couth,//., 458. 

coude or couthe, pret., 457, 458. 

could, /rf/"., 201, 457, 458. 

couple, n., 231. 

cousin-german, n,, 105. 

cow, 149, 200, 232, 236. 

create,//., 401. 

creep, vzv{ys')., 322, 3S0; 
crope, pret., 322; cropen, 
//., 322. 

CI ope, pret.; cropen, //., 322. 

crow, vs. V2V., 345, 350, 396; 
crown,//., 345, 396. 

crowd, vw(vs)., 322, 

cUf n.f 232, 236, 



cunnan, v. pret. pres., 457. 

curse, vw,, 364. 

cut, vw., 371, 372, 398; cutted, 

pret., 372; cutten,//., 398. 
cwe^an, vs., 338. 
9/;/^, n., 215. 

-d, pret. end. See -ed and -^<?. 

-d,//. end,, 356, 365, 387, 400, 
401. 

dare, v. pret. pres. and vw., 
444, 459, 463; dare, pres, 
jd sing., 459; dares, pres. 
^d sing., 459; dared, pret.y 
459; durst, /r^^., 459; durst, 

//•, 459. 
daughter, ;/., 149, 152, 220, 235. 
dauntless, a., 109. 
-d(e), pret. end., 153, 356- 

3^^^ 375- 
deal, ?7w., 378. 
deem, vw., 357, 358, 362, 404, 

405,416,417,418,440. 
deer, n., 152, 224, 230. 
delve, vw{vs^., 330. 
derre, * dearer,' a. comp., 254. 
dig, vs{vw)., 155, 327, 351, 

354; digged, 327, 354. 
dight, vzv., 386. 
ding, vw{vs)., 328, 329; dung, 

pret. and//., 329. 
dip, vw., 364. 
d^s-,pref., 112. 
distraught, <3:., 384. 
dive, z/7e;(?yj)., 323, 355; dove, 

pret., 323. 
do, V. irreg, and auxil.^ 99, 

156, 305, 356, 436-440, 45i» 
466; doth, /r^j. //., 414, 
466. 

dogma, n., 147, 237; dog- 
mata, n. pi., 147, 237. 

-dom, suf., 108. 

doughtren, n. pl.^ 149, 152, 234. 



Index to Words and Phrases, 



503 



dove, pret, 323. 

down, «., 42. 

dozen, «., 231. 

drag, vw{vs)., 343. 

dxdiYQf pret.f 431. 

diaw, z/j., 340, 341, 342, 343, 
392; droh, drow, /r^/., 341; 
drawed, pret.^ 146, 352. 

vlread, vw{vs)., 346, 360, 367; 
dredde, pre^., 367; dread, 
/r^/., 381. 

dream, n., 47. 

dream, r^w., 378, 381. 

dree, *to suffer,' vw{vs).^ 
322. 

drink, vs., 153, 324, 394, 423, 
424,425,426; drinked, /r<f/., 
146; drank, //., 394 ; drunk- 
en,//., zip^ 390. 

drive, vs., 99, 202, 306, 313, 314, 
391, 418, 420, 431; drave, 
pret., 431; driv, pret., 314; 
drove,//., 395. 

druid, n., 39. 

drunken, //., 330, 390. 

dun, n., 42. 

dung, /r^A and//., 329, 

durran, v. pret. pres., 459. 

durst, /r^A, 459. 

dwell, vw., 366. 

-e, a. pi. end., 151. 

-e, w. //. end., 150, 215, 224. 

-c, V. end., 119, 151, 152, 153, 

417,418,419, 420, 421, 443» 

444. 
eage, n., 211, 212. 
ear, *to plough,' vw., 175, 357, 

404,405,417, 418, 440. 
eat, w., 335, 339, 393, 395, 425; 

eat,//., 337. 
-ed, suf., 108. 
-(e)d,/r^/. end., 126, 145, 146, 

153, 359-361, 366, 367. 



-ede, pret. end., 357-359» 363* 

375- 
-ede, suf., 108. 
effluvia, n. pL, 239. 
^gg, n., 160, 235; eyren, //., 

160, 235. 
eghen, * eyes,' n. pi., 130. 
elder, eldest, a. comp. and su- 
per I., 151, 248, 249, 250. 
ellipsis, n., 237. 
^tm, pr. pers., 150, 267. 
-en, n. pi. end., 129, 130, 148, 

222, 223. 
-en, inf. end., 94, 151, 442- 

444. 
-en, V. end., 119, 151, 152, 174, 

405,406, 410-413,415, 417, 

418, 420, 421. 
-en, //. end., 356, 387, 389- 

400. 
end, n., 210, 213, 227. 
-ende, /. pres. end., 445, 446. 
ende, n., 210, 213, 220. 
-en(n)e,^^r. end., 443, 444, 446. 
enough, a., 387. 
eode, pret.^ 467, 468. 
-er, suf., 108. 

-er ■) comp. and superl. suf, 
-estj 249-251. 
-ere, suf., 108. 
errata, n. pi., 239. 
-(e)s, ^^«. ^;^^., 126, 282. 
-(e)s, //. end. of n., 129, 130, 

146, 148-150, 220, 223, 227. 
-(e)s, 2d per. pres. sing, end., 

124, 406, 408, 409. 
-(e)s, ^d per. sing, pres, end., 

119, 124, 126, 169, 406, 407, 

409, 410. 
"(e)s, pres. plur, end., 128, 

148-150, 174, 406, 411, 413. 
esk, n., 39. 
-{e)st, end. 2d per. v., 405, 406, 

408, 409, 419, 420. 



5C4 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



-(e) th, end. of ^d per. pres. 

sing., 1 68, 169,405, 406, 407, 

409, 410, 415. 
-(e)th, pres. plur. e7td., 119, 

124, 128, 174, 405, 406, 407, 

411,414,415; pl.imper.,/^6p. 
evil, a., 253. 

excellentest, a., super L, 251. 
exquisitest, a., superl., 251. 
eye, n., 211, 212, 214, 227. 
eyen, or eyne, 71. pL, 148, 223, 

233. 
eyren, ^ eggs,' n. pi, 160, 235. 

feeder, n., 220. 

fall, vs., 345, 392. 

falsehood, 7i., 109. 

fanatical, a.^ 105. 

fare, vw{ys^., 343. 

farther, farthest, a., conip. and 

superU, 254. 
father, n., 200, 220. 
fathom, n., 231. 
feed, vw., 376. 
feel, vw., 379, 444. 
fefor^ n., 42. 

fele, *many,'/r. indef, 299. 
/^^r, * far,' adv., 254. 
ferre, * farther,' a. comp., 254. 
ferrest, a. superl., 254. 
fiend, n., 200. 
fight, vs., 325, 330, 427; 

foughten, //., 330, 390. 
fill, vw., 153, 357, 358, 361, 

362. 
find, vs., 324, 326. 
fish, n.f 199. 
fix, z/w., 364. 
fixen, n., 127. 
flang, /r^/., 326, 424. 
flay, vw{vs)., 343, 344; flain, 

PP', 344-5 
flea, n., 223. 
flee, z/zi^., 321, 322, 380. 



fleen, 7i. pi., 223. 

fleet, vw{vs)., 322. 

fling, vs., 326, 351, 391, 424. 

flite, 'to scold,' viv{vs)., 318. 

float, vzvQvs)., 322. 

flon, ?z.//., 223, 

flow, vza{vs)., 107, 346; flown, 

PP-^ 347- 
flungen,//., 391. 
fly, vs., 319, 321, 391. 
foe, n., 235: fon,//., 235. 
fold, vw{vs^,, 346. 
folk, ;^., 224, 225, 230. 
followand, p. pres., 447. 
foot, n., 146, 152, 204, 205, 

230, 232; foots, //., 146, 

forbid, vs., 338. 

fore, adv., 254. 

foremost, a., 254. 

forget, vs., 337; forgotten, for- 
got,//., ZZ1' 

forlorn, a., 201, 320. 

formula, 11., i^^j, 237. 

forsake, vs., 340, 342, 392, 418, 
419, 420, 421 ; forsook, pp., 

341, 395' 396. 
fortnight, 7t., 200. 
foughten, //., 330, 390. 
fox, 7t., 127. 
fraught, vw., 386. 
freeze, vs., 319, 392; freezed, 

/r^/., 354; froren, frore, //., 

320; froze, //., 429. 
freight, vw., 386. 
fret, vzv(vs).^ 339; fretten,//., 

.339- 
friend, 7t., 200. 
fro, <?^z^., 128. 
froren, frore, //., 320. 
-ful, stif., 108. 
-fill, suf., 108. 
further, furthest, ^., ^^;;?/. and 

superl., 254. 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



505 



ga7t, V. irreg., 467-469. 

gdiUf pret.y 422, 423. 

gar, vzv., 128. 

ge-, pre/., 387, 45^. 

geld, viv.y 366. 

genius, ??., 238. 

genus, 71., 147, 237. 

get, vs., 306, 335, 393, 431 ; 

gat,/r^/., 335, 336, 431. 
gewiss, a., 456. 
gild, vw., 366. 
gin,w., 324, 342,436; gan,436, 

.438. 
gin, V. auxil. ; gan, pret. sing., 

422; gunne(n), gonne(n), 

/r^/.//., 423, z^37, 438. 
gird, z/z£/., 365, 366. 
give, vs., 335, 337, 391. 
glide vw{ys)., 154, 309, 318; 

glod,/r<?^., 309 ; glit, ' glides,' 

415. 
glitterand, p. pres., 447. 
glow, vw(vs)., 346. 
gnaw, vivivs)., 343, 344; 

gnawn,//., 344, 397. 
go, v. irreg., 366, 447, 467-469; 

geth, jd per. pres. sing., 467, 

469; go^AA, 469. 
gonne(n). Sqq gin. 
good, «., 253; gooder, goodest, 

253- 
goose, n., 152, 232, 233. 
^^/, I have, phr., 452. 
gotten, got, pp., 306, 335, 337, 

393- 
grave, vw{vs~)., 343, 344, 397; 

graven,//., 344, 397. 
greet, vw., 362, 367; grette, 

pret., 367. 
greet, 'to mourn,' vw(vs).^ 

347- 
grind, vs., 324, 326, 427. 
gripe, vw{vs')., 318. 
gross, /?., 231. 



grow, vs., 345, 392, 419, 420, 
421 ; growed, pret.., 309, 310. 
gunne (n) . See gin. 

ha, pr. pers., 269. 

'had, suf., 108. 

had as lief, v. -phr., 444. 

had better, v. -phr., 444; had 

liefer, z/.-//?r., 444; had rather, 

v.-phr., 444; had sooner, 

v.-phr., 444. 
Had I zvist, phr., 456. 
'had ought,' v.-phr., 454. 
ham(e), ;2., 119. 
hang, w. z^z£/., 345, 346, 350; 

heng, /r^/., 346; hong,/r(?A, 

346. 
hard, (a;., 249. 
hatan, vs., 203, 348; /^«//^, 

pass., 449. 
have, vw., 306, 385, 434, 435; 

hath and has, ^d siitg. pres., 

410; hath, pres. pi., 414. 
haved(e), /r*?/., 385. 
]iQ, pr. pers., 98, 164, 264, 265, 

266, 269, 270. 
he, it is, phr., 275. 
hear, vw., 357, 379. 
heat, vw., 377; heat,//., 377. 
heave, ?77£/. vs., 340, 342, 350, 

351; hove(n),//., 342. 
heed, 27w., 356. 
help, vw. vs., 146, 155, 156, 325, 

328, 330, 350, 351, 354; 

holp, pret., 325; holp(en), 

PP', 325, 330. 390. 

hejfz, ' them,' pr. pers., 98, 150, 
266, 267, 270. 

hemself, 'themselves,' pr. re- 
flex., 285. 

heng,/rf/., 346. 

heo, pr. pers., 264, 266. 

her,/?'./^rj-., 164, 264, 267, 273, 
282; it is hery phr., 165, 273. 



5o6 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



here^ heres, * their,' /r. pers., ' 
98, 150, 266, 270, 278, 279, ' 
280. , 

heren, * their'n,' pr. pers., 280. 

her'n, ' hers,' pr. pers., 280. ' 

herre, 'higher,' a. comp.^ 254. | 

herself,/;-, reflex., 285. 

hew, vivivs)., 346, 347, 397; ^ 
hew, pret.., 347; hewn, //., 

347' 397- 
hext, ' highest,' a. super!., 254. ' 
hif 'they,' pr. pers., 98, 150, 

264, 266. 
hidden, //.,3i6, 317, 393, 398. ' 
hide, vs. viv., 316, 317, 351, 1 

377. 393» 398. 
high, a., 254. 
hight, vwlys)., 346, 347, 348, 

370- 
him, pr. pers., 98, 164, 264, 

266, 267, 268, 270, 273; it is I 
Jii7}i, phr., 165, 273. j 

himself, himselven, pr. reflex., ' 
.283-285. i 

hindmost, a., 254. 1 

hires, 'hers,' /r./^r^., 278. ' 

his, pr. masc. gen., 264, 270, | 

279,281-283. j 

his, /r. neut. geji., 94, 166, 167, 1 

173, 264, 270, 276, 279, 281- i 

his'n, pr. pers.^ 281. ' 

hisself, /r. reflex., 285. 1 

hit, 'it,' pr. pers., 98, 166, 264, j 

268, 269, 270. ' 

hit, vw., 371. 

klcsfdige, n., 219. j 

hold, vs., 203, 345 ; holden, ' 

pp., 346, 392. I 

holp,/r^/., 325. , 

holpen, holp, //., 325, 330, , 

390. I 

honorablest, a. super I., 251. I 
-hood, suf., 108, 109. i 



kors, n., 211, 216, 217, 224. 
horse, 71., 150, 152, 21 1, 216, 

217, 224, 225, 227, 230. 
hosen, n. pi., 130, 224. 
house, 71., 224; housen, pi., 

129, 149. 
kotise to let, phr., 445. 
how, adv., 293. 
hri^e, n., 42. 
hurt, vw., 371. 
hus, n., 149, 224. 
hwd, ' who,' pr. interrog., 97, 

127, 198, 289, 290. 
hwa, pr. indef., 299. 
hwcEt, pr. interrog., 289, 290. 
hwce^er, pr. interrog., 289, 292. 
/m'tl., n., 221. 

hwilc, pr. interrog., 289, 291. 
hypothesis, 71., 237. 

l.pr.pers., 164, 268, 270, 273. 

i-,pref., 3S7-391. 

1 2t am, or ?/ avi I, phr., 275. 

/, it is, phr., 275. 

i-be, //., 474. 

ic, pr. pers., 263, 268. 

ice-berg, ??., 42. 

ich, pr. pers., 268. 

-z]^, suf., 108, 204. 

'■\k, pr. pers., 268. 

i-lent, //., 2!^'^. 

ilk, pr. deino7i., 262. 

ill, a., 128, 253. 

m, prep.f 172. 

-inde, /. /;vj. ^«(2^., 446, 447. 

index, «., 238. 

-ing, verbal 71. e7id., 108, 1 72, 

447- 
-mg(e), p. pres. e7id., 447. 
inmost, a., 255. 
inter-, /;'<?/i, 112. 
is, ist a7id 2d pers., 120, 1 25 
is,pres. pL, 474, 475. 
z^ bei7ig, v.-phr., 172, 173. 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



507 



is being built ^ v.-phr., 172, 173. 

is building, v.-phr., 172, 173. 

-isCy suf., 108. 

Ise, * I shall,' v.-phr. ^ 460. 

-ish, suf., 108. 

-ism, suf., 113. 

-ist, suf, 113. 

i-sworn, pp., t^^Z. 

it, pr. pers., 98, 165, 174, 266, 

267, 268, 269, 270, 271; it 

own, 166. 
it is he, phr., 275. 
it is her, phr., 165, 273. 
it is him, phr., 165, 273. 
it is vie, phr., 165, 273. 
it is you, phr., 165. 
its, pr. pers., 94, 165-167, 270, 

271. 
itself, /r. reflex., 285. 
iwis, * certainly,' adv., 456, 457; 

Iwis or I wis, 457. 
-ize, suf, 113. 

keep, vw., 362, 363, 379, 381. 
kine, n. pL, 149, 232, 235, 236. 
king, w,, 215, 222; kingen, //., 

215. 
kirk, n., 127. 
kiss, viv., 362, 363. 
knead, vw{vs^., 339. 
kneel, vw., 380, 381. 
knit, vw., 372. 
know, vs., 342, 345, 392; 

knowed, 146. 
kye, n. pi., 200, 232, 235. 

lade, vw{vs)., 343, 344, 397; 

laden, //., 344, 397. 
\2idy, n., 2ig; Ididy, gen., 2ig. 
Iamb, n.; pi., lambren, 235. 
Ian, n., 40. 
laugh, vw(vs)., 3/,3. 
lay, vw.y 336. 
lead, vw.f 376 



lean, v-w., 379, 381. 

leap, V7v(vs)., 346, 380, 381; 

learn, vzu., 364, 366. 

learned, a., 360. 

-leas, suf., 108. 

leasing, n., 175. 

leave, vw., 379. 

lend, z'7£/., 344, 366. 

lene(n), ' to lend,' vw., 344. 

lenger, a. comp., 151, 248, 250. 

lese(n), 'to lose,' vs.., 320, 321, 

322. 
less, a. comp., 253; lesser, 253. 
-less, suf, 108, 109. 
let, viviys)., 346, 370, 440, 444. 
-lie, suf., 108. 
lie, vs., 335, 336, 337, 391, 400; 

lien, pp., 400. 
lie, ^to deceive,' viv{ys^., 322. 
lief, liefer, adv.., 444. 
lift, vw., 374; lift, /r^/. and 

. //•, 374- 

light, 'to illuminate,' vw., 377, 
378; light, *to alight,' vw., 

-like, suf., 108. 

lin, n., 39. 

list, viv., 415 

\\\., pret. and//., 377, 378. 

little, a., 253; littler, littlest, 

253- 
load, 7/w.; 344; loaden,//.,344. 
loan, ;^., 344. 
loan, VIV., 344. 
long, «., 151, 248, 250. See 

lenger, comp. 
look, vw., 357, 358, 359, 361, 

363,404, 405, 417, 418, 440. 
lorn, a., 201, 320. 
lose, vwiys') .,'320, 321, 322, 380. 
louse, n., 232, 233. 
lout, * to bow,' vw(vs),, 322, 
low, vw{vs),, 347. 
-ly, suf, 108. 



5o8 



Index to Words and Phrases, 



-77ta, suf. superl., 254. 

magaUf mugan^ v. pret. pres., 

461. 
make, vw., 385, 444; maked(e), 

pret, 385. 
man, ??., 146, 152, 200, 202, 

204, 232, 233; mans, //., 

146, 233. 
man, pr. ind., 299. 
man, moji, ^intend,' v. pret. 

pres., 463, 464; munde, pret., 

463- 
maun, v. pret. pres., 464. 
may, v. prei. pres., 461. 
mt,pr.pers., 97, 164, 267, 273; 

it is me, plir., 165, 273. 
me, men, /r. indef., 299. 
mean, vw., 379. 
meet, viv., 376. 
melt, viv{vs^., 309, 330, 331; 

n\.o\\.,pret,, 309, 331; molten, 

PP'^ ZZ^, 397- 

men, me, /r. iiidef., 299. 

me self, pr. reflex., 284. 

memorandum, n., 147, 238; pi., 
memorandums or memo- 
randa. 

-mest, suf. superl., 254, 255. 

mete, vzvivs)., 339. 

methinks, vw. hnper., 383. 

mew, pret., 347. 

midmost, a., 255. 

r£\\^\., pret., 461, 462. 

mile, 71., 231. 

min(e), mi, my, pr. pers. and 
poss., 269, 275, 277, 278, 280. 

mistook,//., 341, 396, 

mix, vw., 366. 

nibdor, n., 220. 

molt, pret., molten, pp., 309, 

ZZ^^ 397- 
month, n., 200. 
more, \ ■, r 
most, I '^'^^- of^^f^P'^ 250, 251. 



mote(n), z/. /?'^^. pres., 462^ 

463- 
mother, ;^., 220. 
mought, pret., 462. 
moun, V. pret. pres., 464. 
mourn, 7^w(z^j')., 331. 
mouse, n., 152, 204, 232, 233. 
mow, viv{ys)., 347,397; mew, 

pret., 347; mown, //., 347, 

397- 
movv^e(n), * to b.e able,' v. pret. 

pres., 461. 
much, a., 253. 
mun, V. pret. pres., 464. 
miuit^ n., 42. 

must, V. pret. pres., 462, 463. 
my, pr. See mine. 
mvself, myselve(n), pr. reflex.., 

'284, 285, 286. 

-n, end,, 95,405. See (^);?, 420, 

442, 443. 
7ieah, adv., 254. 
neat, n., 230. 
need, vw., 444, 465; need, j^a? 

.ff;?^. pres., 466; needs, j^a? 

^27z^. pres., 466. 
nerre, 'nearer,' <2. comp., 254. 

-"^^' I suf., 108. 

-ness, ^z^'i, 108. 

next, ' nearest,' a. superl., 254. 

night, n., 152, 200. 

nill, V. reg., 465. 

niste, ' knew not,' pret., 456. 

non-, pre/., 113. 

non, no, a., 278. 

northmost, <^., 255. 

not, * know not,' /r^i-. teftse, 456. 

oasis, ?^., 237. 
obliged, to be, v.-phr., 463. 
-Q&^,pret. e7id., 357, 358, 369. 
old, a,, 151^ 246, 248, 249, 250. 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



5u(j 



olden, a., 246. 

omen, n., 147, 237; omina, //., 

on, prep.^ 172. 

onginnaii^ vs., 436, 437. 

ought, V. defec, 453, 454. 

our, ours, pr. pers.^ 276, 278, 
279, 280. 

our'n, pr. pers,^ 280. 

purself,/r. reflex.^ 284, 285, 286. 

owe, viv., 454. 

own, a.^ 454. 

ox, n.., Ill, 129, 130, 148, 152, 
211, 212, 213, 214, 218, 224, 
227, 233; pi, oxes, 233. 

oxa, n., 95, 211, 212, 218. 

pair, 11., 231. 

pass, vw., 366. 

paven, //., 398, 399. 

pay, vw.y 386. 

pen, n., 39. 

pen, viv., 364. 

perfect, more ajtd va.o^'i, 252. 

perfectio7% perfectissimus, a. 

comp. and %-\x^^zx\., 252. 
persuade 77iyself, /, phr., 449; 

persuaded, I am, v.-phr., 449. 
petroleum, n., no. 
phenomenon, n., 238. 
pight,//., 384. 

pitch, z/z£;., 384; pight, //., 384. 
plaid, n., 39. 
plante, n., 42. 
plantian, vw., 42. 
plead, z/w., 377, 378; plead, 

pret, 378. 
plight, z/w., 374. 
pol, n., 40. 
pollute,//., 401. 
pork, n., III. 
pound, n., 230. 
prove, z/w., 399; proven, //., 

399. 



put, z^za, 371, 398; putten, //., 
398. 

quair, n., 136. 

quilk,/r. interrog. a.ndre/., 291. 

quit, mu., 372, 373. 

quod, p7'el, 339. 

quoth, /r^^., 339. 

quotha, ' indeed,' hiterj., 269. 

radius, n., 238. 

raught, /r^^ and pp., 155, 384. 

reach, vzu., 155, 383, 384; 

raught,/r^/. and//., 155, 384. 
read, z^w., 376. 
reave, vzv., 379, 381. 
rede, * to advise,' vw{vs)., 347. 
reek, vw(vs')., 322. 
reeve, z^^. z/z£/., 340, 351. 
regol, n., 4.2. 
regollic, a., 42. 
rend, z/ze^., 366. 
rid, z^ze'., 369, 
ride, vs.,^ 313, 392, 395, 423, 

425; rit, 'rides,' 414. 
ring, vs{v%v)., 326, 351, 391, 

425, 426, 429; rungen, //., 

. 391- 

rinne(n), renne(n), ' to run,' 
vs., 329. 

rise, vs., ^309, 310, 313, 314, 
391; ris, pret., 314; rised, 
pret., 309, 310; rose, //., 
395, 396; rist, 'riseth,' 415. 

rive, vzv{ys)., 318, 397; riven, 
//., 318, 397. 

rock-oil, n., no. 

root, vw(vs)., 347. 

ros, n., 40. 

rout, 'to snore,' vw(vs),, 322. 

row, vw(vs)., 347. 

rue, vw(vs)., 322. 

run, vs., 324, 329, 428; run, 
pret., 329, 428. 



510 



Index to Words and Phrases, 



-s, n, pi. end.f 129, 150. See 

-s, tense end,, 407, 408, 409. 

See {e^s. 
sail, «., 231. 
sain, pp., 398, 399. 
-sake, vs., 340, 342. 
sal, * shall,' v. pret. pres., 119. 
sang, 'song,' n., 119. 
saw, vw., 353, 397; sawn, //., 

353. 
say, vw., 386, 398; sain, pp.y 

398. 399. 
scathe viv^vs')., 343. 
j-a^, n., 211, 213. 
-scipe,^\xL, 108. 
score, /^., 231. 
sculan, V. pret. pres., 460. 
s'e, s'eo pcEt, pr. demon., 257-260, 

265, 266, 293, 298. 
seche(n), 'to seek,' vw., 127, 

382. 
see, vs., 335, 337, 391; see, 

pret., 336, 337; seed, pret., 

146. 
seek, z/w., 127, 153, 362, 382. 
seethe, vw. vs., 319, 321, 350, 

35 1» 392; pret., selled, 384. 
seistow, * sayest thou,' v.-phr., 

402. 
self, a., 256, 283-286. 
sell, z^w., 202, 304, 382; selled, 

pret., 384. ^ 
send, vw., 36*5, 366. 
seraph, seraphim, n., 239, 240. 
series, ;2., 237. 

set, V2V., 336, 367, 368, 370, 375. 
sew, pret., 347. 
shake, vs., 340, 392; shaked, 

pret., 354; shook, //., 341, 

395. 477- 
shall, V. pret. pres., 423, 432, 
433, 460; shule(n), shulle(n), 
t>/., 423, 460. 



shamrock, n., 39. 

shape, vw{ys^., 343, 344, 397; 

shapen, pp., 344, 397. 
shar(e),/r^/., 332, 430. 
shave, vw{ys^., 343, 344, 397; 

shaven,//., 344, 397. 
sh-Q, pr. pers., 164, 266, 270. 
shear, vs. vw., 332, 333, 350, 

35i» 391*430; shar(e),/r^/., 

332, 430; shore, pret., 332, 

333- 
shed, vw{vs)., 347, 370. 
sheep, 71., 146, 152, 230; 

sheeps, pi., 146, 152. 
shete(n), 'to shoot,' vs., 321. 
shew,/r^/., 353, 355. 
shine, vs., 155, 313, 315, 316, 

35O' 354» 394; shined, /r^/., 

i55> 315. 316, 354; shinen, 

//•. 316, 394. 
ship, 71., 211, 212, 227. 
-ship, siif., 108. 
shoe, vw., 379. 
shoon, ;?.//., 130, 148, 224. 
shoot, vs., 319, 321, 380, 391; 

shotten,//., 381, 391. 
shove, vwi^vs')., 322. 
show, vw., 352, 353, 355, 397; 

shew,/r^A, 353, 355; shown, 

PP-^ 353. 
shred, vw., 373. 
shriek, 77^., 384; shright, //., 

384. 
shrink, vs., 324, 424, 426; 

shrunken,//., 330, 390. 
shrive, vs. vw., 313, 315, 316, 

350. 391. 
shul(len),/r^^, //,, 423, 460. 
shut, vw., 370. 
sich, pr. demon., 262. 
sigh, vw{ys)., 318. 
sui, pr., 276. 
si7idon, si7id, pres. pi., 46, 469, 

470. 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



511 



sing, vs., 304, 324, 390, 391, 
404, 405, 406, 418, 419, 420, 
421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427, 
429, 440; sungen, //., 390, 

391. 

sink, vs.y 325, 424, 426, 429; 

sunken,//., 330, 390. 
sister, n., 149, 152, 220, 235; 

sistren or sustren, n. pL, 149, 

235- 
sit, vs., 107, 335, 336, 394; 

sat(e), pp., 337; sitten, sit, 

//•» ZZl^ 394; sit, 'sits,' 415. 
situate,//., 401. 
slay, vs., 340, 392; sloh, slow, 

pret., 341. 
sleep, vwivs)., 203, 347, 380. 
slide, vs., 313, 314, 392; slod, 

pret., 314. 
sling, vs., 325, 427. 
slink, vs., 325, 424. 
slip, vzv{vs)., 318. 
slit, V7v{vs)., 318, 372, 373. 
slod,/r^/., 314. 
smart, viv(vs)., 331. 
smite, vs., 310, 313, 314, 391, 

393; smit,/r^/., 314; smited, 

pret., 310; smit,//., 393. 
sneak, vwivs)., 318. 
snow, z/j. ? 352. 
soche,/r. demon., 262. 
sod, sodden, /r^/. and//., 319, 

351- 
solstice, n., no. 
sovereignest, v. super I. , 251. 
sow, v'w{vs)., 347, 397; sew, 

/r^/., 347; sown, //., 347. 
span, vwiys)., 347. 
speak, vs., 335, 393, 429, 431; 

spake, pret., 335, 336,431; 

spoke,//., 337, 429. 
species, n., 237. 
speed, viv., 376, 378; speeded, 

pret., 378. 



spell, vw., 364. 

spend, viv., 366. 

spew, vw{vs^., 318. 

spin, z'^., 325, 426; span, //'^Z., 

429; spinned,/rf/., 352. 
spit, vw. vs., 338, 351, 370, 372; 

spitted, /r^/., 372. 
split, VIV., 372, 373. 

spoil, Z/7£^., 364. 

spread, vw., 367, 368, 370, 375. 

spring, vs., 325, 423, 425, 426, 
429. 

sprout, vzvQus')., 322. 

spurn, z/z6'(^'5)., 331. 

squeeze, vw., 355; squoze, 
/rf/., 355. 

-St, e7td., 405. See (^)st. 

staff, n., 340. 

stal(e),/r^^., 332, 431. 

stamen, n., 238. 

stamina, n. pi., 238, 239. 

j/^;2., n., 95, 210, 213, 215, 216, 
217, 220, 226. 

stand, vs., 308, 340, 341, 394, 
477; stood,//., 341, 394, 395, 
477; stonden, //., 341, 394, 
395,477; stant, 'stands,' 415. 

starve, v%v{ys),, 331; starven, 

PP-^ 331- 
stave, n., 340. 

stave, vs. vw., 340, 341, 351. 
stead, vw., 371. 
steal, vs., 332, 333, 390, 393, 

429, 431; stale, pret., 332, 

431; stole,//., 333*429. 
steke(n), * to pierce,' vs., 327, 

328. 
step, vw{ys")., 343. 
stick, vw{ys^., 327, 351; 

stiked, pret. and //., 327. 
sting, vs., 325, 427. 
stmk, vs., 325, 425. 
stol, n., 95. 
stonde(n),//., 341, 394, 395. 



512 



Index to Words and Phrases, 



stone, n., 210, 216, 217, 226, 

227, 231. 
strath, n., 39. 
straught, //., 384. 
street, n., 20, 
strenger, a. comp., 151, 248- 

250. 
stretch, z/7<:/., 383. 384; straught, 

//•, 384. 
strew, z/2e;., 353, 397. 
strewn, /j^., 353. 
strtcatz, 'to advance,' vs., 315. 
stricken,//., 314, 315, 391. 
stride, vs., 313, 314, 393; strid, 

pret., 314; strid,//., 393. 
strike, vs., 314, 391; strok, 

pret., 314; striken, pret., 

314. 

string, ;/., 328. 

string, vs., 327, 328, 351. 

strive, vs. vw., 316, 317, 318, 

351. 354. 
strong, a., 151, 248-250; co7?2p. 

strenger. 
strucken, //., 314. 
sty, viv^vs)., 318. 
sub-,/;'f/, 113. 
such, /r. demon., 262, 292. 
suck, vw{ys)., 322. 
sulche, /r. demon., 262. 
sungen,//., 391. 
sunken, //., 330, 390. 
sun-stead, n., no. 
sup, vw{vs)., 322. 
super-, /r<?/!, 113. 
supreme, a., 252. 
sustren, n. pi. See sister. 
swang, pret., 424, 429. 
swear, w., 340, 342, 390, 392, 

431; sware, pret., 342, 

431- 
sweat, vw., 373, 398; sweaten, 

PP-^ 398, 399. 
sweep, vw., 380. 



swell, viv(vs^., 330, 331, 397. 

swerve, vw{vs)., 331. 

swiche, swilche, pr. de77ton.^ 

262. 
swim, z.-^., 325, 425, 426; 

swimmed, /r^^., 352. 
swine, n., in, 230. 
swing, vs., 325, 424, 427. 
swang, pret., 424, 429. 
swollen,//., 331,397. 
swoop, vw{vs^., 347. 
swulche, /r. demon., 262. 

-t, //, f;?^., 356, 387, 400. 
take, vs., 340, 343, 392; took, 

//•» 341, 395- 
-t(e),/rf/. ^;z^., 153, 356, 361, 

362, 363-367* 375- 
teach, vw., 155, 383; teached, 

pret., 155, 385. 
tear, w., 202, 332, 391, 431 ; 

\.2x&,pret., 332, 431. 
tell, vw., 46, 94, 153, 155, 382, 

411; telle d, /r^^'., 155. 
-th, end., 403. See {/)th, 
than, /r^/. .<?, 298. 
than whom., phr., 298. 
thank, vw., 361, 363. 
thar, ' need,' v. pret. pres., 463; 

thruste, /rf /. , 463. 
that, /r. demon., 257-260. 
that, (^r^'., 259. 
that oon — that other, 260. 
that, /r. rf/., 294-299; that — 

he, 'who,' 298; that — his 

* whose,' 298; that — him, 

'whom,' 298; that — hem, 

'whom,' 'which,' 298. 
the, adv., 258, 259. 
the, art., 105, 166, 259, 260; 

the own, 166, 167; the tone — 

the tother, 260. 
thee, pr. pers., 164, 270, 273, 

287-289. 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



513 



thee self,//', reflex.^ 284. 

their, pr. pers.^ 150, 266, 270, 
279, 280, 282. 

their'n, pr. pers.^ 280. 

theirselves, theirself, pr. re- 
flex, 285. 

\\\^m, pr. pers.y 150, 266, 267, 
270, 273. 

then, art., 259. 

thereof, adv., 166. 

these, /r. demon., 261. 

they, pr.pers., 98, 150, 266, 270. 

thilke, pr. demon., 262. 

thin(e), \.\i\, pr. pers., 269, 275, 
277, 278, 280. 

thing, n., 150, 152, 224, 225, 
230. 

think, viu., 304, 383. 

thinkestow, v.-phr., 402. 

thinks, in methinks, viv. imper., 

383- 

this, /r. demon., 261, 262. 
tho, ' those,' pr. demon., 258. 
-thorp, suf., 45. 
those, /r. demon., 258. 
thou, /r. pers., 164, 270, 272, 

287-289. 
thresh, V7v{vs)., 331. 
thrive, z^i". z^zf., 146, 202, 316, 

317, 318, 351, 354. 
throssen, //., 398. 
throw, vs., 345, 392; throwed, 

preL, 352. 
thrust, vw., 371, 398; thrusten, 

throssen,//., 398. 
tliruste, pret., 463. 
-tliwaite, suf., 45. 
thy, pr. pers. ^to, thine. 
tide, vw., 376. 
\\\, prep., 119. 
to, prep., 119; with infiit., 

443-447- 
toe, /^., 148, 152. 
-toft, i'^//, 45. 



ton, n. pi., 148, 152, 224. 

t'one, the, ///r., 260. 

tongue, «,, 211, 212, 213, 214, 

227. 
tooth, n., 200, 232, 233. 
-torp, szif., 45. 
t'other, the,//zr., 260. 
trad(e),/;-^/., 335,431. 
trans-, /ri?/i, 113. 
ti^e, n., 39. 

tread,- OT., 335, 393, 431; trad, 
pret., 335, 431; tread, /r^/., 
_38i; trod,//., 337, 393,429. 
/e^, num., 265. 
tun, n., 231. 

ttmge, n., 211, 212, 213, 214. 
tzva, num., 265.* 
twelvemonth, n., 200. 
twit, vwivs)., 318, 319. 

^arf, V. pret. pres., 463. 

pe, pr. demon, and rel., 257, 

293. 294. 
pes, peos, pis, pr. demon., 261. 
fiu, pr. pers., 263. 

ultra-, /r^, 113. 
uncouth, a., 201, 458. 
understand, vs., 308; under- 
stood,//., 477. 
undertook,//., 341. 
-ting, suf., 108, 447. 
unwittingly, adv., 456. 
\M^, pr. pers., 97, 164, 270, 273. 
us self, pr. reflex., 284. 
utan, inf., 441. 

veal, ;?., ill. 

vers, * verses,' n. pL, 231. 

virtuoso, n., 238. 

virtuosest, «. superl., 25 1. 

vixen, ;/., 127. 

vortex, n., 238. 

vox, ;/., 127. 



SH 



Index to Words and Phrases, 



wade, vw{vs).^ 343. 

wake, vs. tjw., 340, 343, 350, 

354, 394; woke, //., 341; 

waken,//., 341, 394. 
walk, vwivs).^ 347. 
wan, p7'et.^ 429. 
^\2.xQ, pret., 334, 431. 
warp, vzv(ys^., 331. 
was, pret., 202, 472; were, 2d 

per. sing., 202, 472, 473; 

wert, 2d per. sing., 473; 

wast, 2d per, sing., 473; 

were,//., 472; was,//., 475; 

you was, 475, 476. 
was given a book, phr,, 451 ; 

was told the truth, phr. ,451. 
wash, 7^w(w).,"' 343; washen, 

PP-y 344. 
vfQNQ,pret., 335, 431. 
wax, T^zf (7/^)., 343, 344; waxen, 

PP-^ 344, 397- 
vfQ, pr. pers..^ 164, 263. 
wear, z^^z^w)., 334, 351, 431; 

werede, pret., 334; ware, 

pret., 334, 431. 
weave, vs. vw., 335, 338, 350, 

354. 392, 431; waf, wave, 

P^^^-i 335, 431; wove, //., 

337, 392. 
wed, vw., 374. 

weep, vwQvs)., 347, 380, 381. 
weet, V. pret. pres., 455. 
weigh, vw{vs)., 339. 
wend, vw., 366, 468; went, 

pret., 366, 468; wended, 

pret., 366, 468. 
weor^an, vs., 170, 449, 450. 
were, pret. 2d per. sing., 202, 

472, 473. 
were(n), 'wear,' vw., 334. 
wesan,YS., 170, 338, 449, 450, 

472, 474. 
wet, vw., 360, 373. 
what, /;^, interrog., 289, 290. 



wheeze, vw(vs')., 347. 

whet, vw., 373. 

whether, /r. interrog., 292; 

<3:^z/. interrog., 292. 
which, /r. interrog., 291, 292. 
which, /r. r^/., 294, 295, 297, 

298, 299; the which, 294; 

which that, 295. 
whilk, /r. rel., 291. 
whilom, adv., 221. 
whiskey, ;?., 39. 
who, pr. intei'rog., 164, 165, 

264, 289, 291. 
who, /r. rel., 295-298. 
who, /;'. indef., 299; ^^ if/^^ 

should say, phr., 299. 
whom, /r. interrog., 164, 165, 

290, 291. 
whom, /r. rel., 295-298; than 

whom, 298. 
whose, /r. interrog., 290. 
whose, /r. r*?/., 295-298; the 

whose, 295. 
whulc, pr, interrog. and ^'^Z., 

291. 
why, adv., 293. 

wich, pr. interrog. and r^/., 291. 
will, v., 432, 433, 464, 465. 
willan, v., 464. 
wz7/y, nilly, phr., 465. 
win, z/j., 324, 427, 429; wan, 

pret., 429. 
wind, vs., 324, 326, 329, 330, 

427. 
wind, vw. vs., 329, 330. 
wis, I, phr., 457. 
wisse, wis, ' to show,' vw., 457. 
\N\st, pret., 454-456; //., 456. 
wit, V. pret. pres., 454-457. 

See wot and wist, 
witan, V. pret. pres., 454, 456. 
w'ltan, vs., 319, 
with-, /r^y^, 108. 
withdraw, withhold, vs., 108. 



Index to Words and Phrases. 



515 



wilhsay, vw.^ 108. 

withstand, w., 108, 308. 

witting, /./r^j., 456. 

wol, ' will,' v., 465. 

w^on, *to dwell,' vw.^ 357, 358, 

374. 
wonnot, wonot, won't, v. neg., 

465. 
wont, vzv., 373, 374. 
work, vw., 383, 385; worked, 

pret.^ 385; wrought, pret., 

385. 

worse, adj. comp.^ 253; worser, 

253. 
worthe(n), vs.^ 170, 449, 450. 
wot, prcs. tense, 454-456; 

Avotted, /;v/., 455, 456; w^ot- 

tmg,p.pres., 455, 456. 
wound, n., 210, 227. 
wrang, /r^/., 424. 
wreak, vwivs)., 339. 
wreathe, vzv., 318, 319; w^reath- 

en,//., 319. 
wring, vs., 324, 424, 427; 

wrang, /r^/., 424. 
write, OT., 314, 390, 392, 423, 

425, 426, 427; writ, pret.^ 

314, 423, 425, 425-427; writ, 

/;)., 392; wTote,//., 395. 
writhe, Vco^vs),, 318, 319; 

wTithen, //., 319. 
wrought, pret., ^^.^i,, 385. 
wmch, wulch, pr, interrog. and 

rel., 291. 
iinind^ n., 210, 219. 
wuniauy vw., 357. 

y-,/^C/"-^387-39i. 456, 457- 



-y, j^/, 108, 204. 

y-be, ' been,' pp., 388, 474. 

y-clept, 'called,'//., 389. 

y-do, ' done,' //., 388. 

ye,/r., 164, 165, 271,272, 273, 

287-289. 
y% ye, 'the,' 35.^ 
yead, yeed, v. Sqq yede. 
year, ;/., 150, 152, 224, 225, 

230. 
yede, pj'et., 467, 468; yede, 

ijif.^ 467, 468. 
yell, vioivs)., 330. 
yelp, vzv{vs)., 330. 
yenger, yengest, a,, covip, and 

super L, 248, 249, 250. 
y-go, 'gone,'//., 388. 
yield, vw{vs)., 330, 331; yold- 

en,//., ZZ^. 
y-maked,//., 388. 
y-may, inf., 389. 
yode, p7^et., 467, 468. 
yoke, n., 230. 
y olden,//., 331. 
yon, pr. demon., 263. 
you, pr. pers., 164, 165, 271- 

273, 287-289. 
young, a., 248, 249, 250; coinp., 

yenger, 248. 
your, yours, /r. pers., 276, 278, 

279, 280. 
your'n,/r. /^rj-., 280. 
yourself, pr. reflex., 284, 28 c:, 

286. 
you self,/;-, reflex., 284. 
y-pointing, /. /r(?^., 389. 
y*, yat, 'that,'/;-, and conj., 35. 
ywis, a(2'z^., 456, 457. 



" One of the best series of annotated school texts that have ever 
tec? produce^?-'* '''.<' 

ENGLISH READINGS 

i6mOi cloth, Priios net 

ARDOLB : Prose Selections. Ed. by L E, Gates, Harvard, xci -{- 348 

pp - 90c 

BROWNING : Selections. Ed. by E. T. M ason. 275 pp 60c. 

BURKE : Selections. Ed. by Bliss Pf.rry, Princeton, xxvi -f 298 pp. 60c. 

On Conciliation. Ed. by D. V. Thompson, xliv \- 122 pp ....... ^cc. 

•^YRON : Selections from his Poetry. Ed. by F. J. Carpenter, Chicago 

Univ. Iviii -f 412 pp _ $1.00. 

COLERIDGE : Prose Selections. Ed. by H. A. Beers, Yale, xxx +■ 146 pp. 

50c. 
DE QUINCEYj English Mail Coach and Joan of Arc. Ed. by J. M. Haut, 

Cornell, xxvi -f- 138 pp 50c 

DRYDEN : Essays on tlie Drama. Ed. by Wm. Strunk, Cornell, xl f i8o 

PP - ' = 50c. 

FORD : The Broken Heart. Ed. by Clinton Scollard. xvi + 132 pp. 50c. 
JOHNSON : Rasselas. Ed. by O. F. Emerson, Western Reserve Univ. Iv +- 

T79PP 50c. 

L/iNDOR: Selected Imaginary Conversations. Ed. by A. G. Newcomer, 

Stanford Univ. lix -}- 166 pp 50c. 

lYLY: Endymion. Ed. by Geo. P. Baker, Harvard, cxcvi + 109 pp.. 55c. 
MACADXAY : Essays on Milton and Addison. Ed. by J. A= Tufts, Phillips 

Exeter Academy. 
MAG AULA Y AND CARLYLE : Croker's Boswell's Johnson. Ed. by Wm 

Strunk, Cornell, xl + 192 pp. - - ^ 50c. 

MARLOWE J Edward II. and Selections from Tamburlaine and the Poems. 

Ed. by E. T. McLaughlin. xxi + i8opp. 50c. 

MILTON : Lyric and Dramatic Poems. Ed. by M. W. Sampson, Indiana 

Univ. li + 345pp.... 75c. 

ivEWMAN : Prose Selections. Ed. by L. E. Gates, Harvard, ^x + 228 

PP = •■ 50c. 

PATER: Selections. Ed. by E. E. Hale, Jr., Union Coll. lxxvii + 268pp. 75c. 
FC'iE : Selections from his Poetry. Ed. by E. B. Reed, Yale, xxx + 246 pp. 

70c. 
\^USKIN : Sesame and Lilies. Ed. by R. H. Root, Yale, xxviii -[-137 pp. 50c. 
SWIFT : Prose Selections. Ed. by F. C. Prescott, Cornell, xlvii + 229 pp. 

60c. 
TENNYSON : The Princess. Ed. by L. A. Sherman, Univ. of Nebr. L\i -f 

185 pp .... = 60C: 

THACKERAY : English Humorists. Ed. by W. L. Phelps, Yale, xli + 360 

pp .•-- 80c, 

SPECIMENS OF PROSE COMPOSITION. 

The Short Story. Ed. by G. H. Nettleton, Yale, vii 4- 229 pp... 50c. 
Forms of Discourse. Ed. by E. H. Lewis, Lewis Inst. Chicago, viii -j- 

37 pp • • ' - ^oc. 

Prose Narration. Ed. by W. T. Brewster, Columbia, xxxviii -h 201 pp. 

Prose Description Ed. by C. S Baldwin, Yale, xlvii + T45 pp. ... 50c. 
Exposition, Ed. by H. Lamont, Brown Univ. xxix -1- r8o pp . 50c. 
Argumentation. Ed. by G. P. Baker, Harvard, vii + 186 pp, . . ... 50c. 

LJ C \] !;> V U Pi I T Rr f^r-i ^^ West 23d Street, New YcrS 
n C IN i\ 1 n W L 1 ex ^>v y , 3^8 Wafeash Avenue, Chicane 

51 '02 



*^ I do not unotx) where else, within the limits, to find so delightful 
a selection of noble -poems''— Prof. Thomas R, Price of Columbia* 

PANCOAST'S STANDARD ENGLISH POEMS 



From Spenser to Tennyson, Selected and edited by HenrY 
S. Pan COAST, author of Aii Introduction to English Litera^ 
ture^ etc. 749 pp. i6nio. $1.50, net. 

Some 250 complete poems, besides selections from such long 
poems as "The Faerie Queene," " Childe Harold's Pilgrim* 
age," etc. 

There are iq pages of Ballads, 33 of Spenser, 22 of Elizabethan 
Songs and Lyrics, 16 of Elizabethan Sonnets. 51 of Seven- 
teenth Century Songs, 51 of verse from Dryden to Thomson, 
277 of verse from Thomson to Tennyson, and 100 of Victorian 
Terse, 164 of Notes (chiefly biographical a.nd appreciative), 
and an index of titles. 

New York Tribune : " We believe it will be received cordially 
Iby all lovers of poetry, whether elementary students or not. Basing 
tiis selections on the individual excellence and historic importance 
of the poems, the editor has not allowed his fidelity to the latter test 
to overrule his taste, and there is very little matter in the book 
which is historically significant alone. First and last, this is an 
anthology of the best poetry.'' 

Prof. Henry A. Beers of Yale, author of " English Romanticism in 
ihe Eighteenth Century," etc.: *' The collection seems to me in gen- 
eral made with excellent judgment, and the notes are sensible, help- 
ful, and not too weitldufig.^' 

Prof. Albert S. Cook of Yale : '* A thoroughly good selection, and 
the notes are judicious, so far as I have examined." 

Prof. William Hand Browne of Johns Hopkins: "The scope is 
amply wide, and the selections as judicious as was possible under the 
limitations. The notes, judging from a hasty glance, seem full and 
clear." 

Prof. Charles W. Kent of the University of Virginia : " Contains 
nearly all the poems I would wish in such a volume and very few 
that I would readily dispense with." 

Prof. James M. Dixon of Washington University: "It is just 
such a handy volume as can be made, by a sympathetic teacher,, a 
companion to the scholar for life." 

HENRY HOLT & CO., ^^^.^S)^^.'Z^i^ll. 

i IQOO 



^^ One of the most important contributions yet made to literary 

history by an American scholar.'' — The Outlook. 

BEERS' ENGLISH ROMANTICISM— xviil century 

Bj^ Professor HENRY A. BEERS of Yale. Gilt top. lamo. 
$2.00. 

N. Y. Times^ Saturday Review : " Remarkably penetrating 
and scholarly. . . It is a noteworthy book by an acknowl- 
edged authority upon a most interesting period." 

Literature : "Not without its strong bearing upon contem- 
porary letters. . . The author presents in himself a rare 
combination -a scholarly and historical knowledge, which 
places at his command a seemingly inexhaustible fund of 
literary data, and a keen and appreciative taste. . . The 
author is always interesting ar i lucid, his analyses are clear 
and profound, and his lighter details of literary happenings 
are often delightfully amusing. . . A notable example of 
the best type of unpedantic literary scholarship." 

Alfred V/. Pollard^ the English critic : "I have read it with 
great enjoyment ... it is a thoroughly good book, pleas- 
antly written, and bringing together an important mass of 
facts and criticisms." 

Professor Win. Lyon Phelps in Nem Haven Register: " Its publi- 
cation is a literary event. . . The style is dignified, sincere, 
luminous, and bright, with an occasional touch of delicate 
humor. This is a work that one can read as steadily as if it 
were a romance itself." 

Boston Journal : "A fascinating volume . . . the chapters called 
* The Landscape Poets,' 'The Gothic Revival,' and 'Percy 
and the Ballads,' each has a perfection of its own that tempts 
one to read it without regard to sequence. . . In this section, 
as in many others of the book, there is a rare sympathy shown 
in the bringing together of the quotations from the poets. 
The influence of Mrs. Radcliffe and her ilk is delightfully 
illustrated . . . the Percy chapter is unique, and has some- 
thing of the dramatic vigor that distinguishes the old ballads 
themselves . . . one is loath to leave a subject so admirably 
handled." 

LAVIGNAC'S MUSIC AND MUSICIANS 

Edited for America by H. E. Krehbiel and translated by 
William Marchant. With 94 illustrations and 510 examples 
in musical notation. i2mo. $3.00. 

A brilliant, sympathetic, and ' authoritative work covering 
musical sound, the voice, instruments, construction aesthetics, 
and history. 

In view of the great mass of information concentrated in this 
single volume, and making it practically a cyclopedia of its 
subject, the charm of the author's style is remarkable. And 
this style has been most happily retained by the translator, 
who did a similar service so well for Chevrillon's In India. 
Mr. PI. E. Krehbiel, author of How to Listen to Alusic and 
other popular books, has contributed some interesting pages 
on music in America and given tho book the few touches, 
such as additions to the bibliographies, that it needed to fit it 
for American readers. The illustrations are numerous, 
especially those of orchestral instruments, and many ex- 
amples in musical notation elucidate the text. 

HENRY HOLT & CO., ^^ ^^^^l^^r^^^ 



fifi 



3o 









'-^"^ .-'^^v^/ ■■A. %.*' 

<^ 



A 

^0^ 




^ >j,^^^ ^5 ^-^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper pr( 

'^ n^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxidi 

^ (*, v< Treatment Date: Oct. 2006 

: '^^ :l PreservationTechnoloj 

"^ ^ l>^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVE 

>»* 111 Thomson Park Drive I 

"** CranberryTownship, PA 16061 

♦ (724)779-2111 ] 



/°- 



% 



UQ<i 







"°^''^^-;o^ ^/^-^V^ "^V^^^^'V 



5K 





^°-^^ 




,^o",'r.«' -> 



*^ 















DOBBSBROS. ,^ -^ x\^ <> '**«"* .0 O^ 'o 

IBRARY BINDING _! >» O^ V^- 0**"*-? <^^ i^^ -»-/« '^ 

r. AUGUSTINE ^r^o ^Ov% "^i^O^T^W* 4 * ^^fcft^^^ * n 




fcj% FLA. 



' ^0 





